Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DERBY FRIAR GATE CHAPEL BILL [Lords]

MERCANTILE CREDIT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

PETITION

Family Allowances and Child Tax Credits

Mrs. Castle: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition about family allowances and the tax credit scheme on behalf of the Married Women's Association and the women's organisation of the Labour Party, signed by 300,000 women and men of this country. May I add that the signatures would have been over a million if a number of people had not been misled by the Chancellor's reference to this matter in his Budget speech.
The petition sheweth.
 That grave hardship would be done to the welfare of children and families if the family allowance or child tax credit which may supplant it under the Government's proposals, outlined in their Green Paper, were not paid directly to the mother in respect of all children.
The petition therefore goes further than the assurances so far given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and seeks the support of this House in urging that
Any family allowance or tax credit in lieu of that allowance which may be introduced in respect of any child in the family, including the first, shall be paid directly to the mother and that such payments shall continue to be universal with none of the exclusions proposed in the Green Paper.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urges Her Majesty's Govern-

ment to retain in the event of any reorganisation of the tax credit system relative to family allowance arrangements whereby family allowances or child tax credits are paid directly to the mother.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Health Education Officers

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of health education officers employed by local authorities; and what is the number of local authorities employing them as a percentage of those local authorities empowered to appoint such officers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): About 200 full-time health education officers are employed by 60 per cent. of the local health authorities in England and Wales. The numbers of staff engaged part-time on health education are not available centrally.

Mr. Dormand: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been insufficient improvement in those figures in recent years? Ought not the Government to be pressing local authorities until they have all appointed such officers? Has not the time arrived for a massive and continuing campaign by the Government and local authorities to show people that positive preventive health care is better than cure? Would not the Minister further agree that such a policy would in the long run save money quite apart from bringing much benefit to many thousands of people?

Mr. Alison: We share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the preventive potential of health education. The increase in the number of local authorities employing these officers has not been quite as poor as the hon. Gentleman suggests. For instance, in 1966 there were only 67 whereas in the current year there are 108. This is a substantial increase. In the past year there was an


increase of 10. Many other members of the health team in local authorities undertake part-time health education.

Mr. Ashley: If the Minister is prepared to disclose information on this aspect of the social services, why is he refusing to disclose information on the wider aspect of the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by local authorities, particularly in view of the recent report which shows a disgraceful failure by many local authorities to implement that Act?

Mr. Alison: That is another question. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are awaiting returns on some aspects of the implementation of that Act.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this is a deeply important matter? Has he seen the disquieting report by the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases? Is it not utterly disgraceful that there are five counties with a population of 8 million which spend less on holidays for the disabled than one London borough? Is he further aware that the report shows that some local authorities provide 25 times as many telephones for the housebound disabled per 100,000 of the population as some other authorities? Is it not time we had full information about what local authorities are providing in the social services field?

Mr. Alison: It may be easier to improve uniformity of standards when the health services are centrally administered by the reorganised National Health Service.

Widowed Mothers (Benefit Disregards)

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many widowed mothers are currently subject to a limitation of supplementary benefit as a result of their children taking employment outside school hours.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The most recent information is at November 1971 when a sample inquiry showed that there were of the order of 150 such cases.

Mr. Booth: Does the Minister agree that the number may be much larger now than it was when that sample survey was made? Is it his intention that boys who do paper rounds before going to school should have to contribute towards the maintenance of their widowed mothers? Will he undertake to review the limits placed upon the earnings of schoolchildren in the payment of supplementary benefit to the mothers?

Mr. Dean: I will, of course, consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the widowed mother's allowance, which is the main allowance involved, is not affected by any earnings there may be. As regards supplementary benefit, the widow can earn £2 and have it entirely disregarded, and £1 for a child under 16 and £2 for a child over 16 can also be disregarded. Therefore, in addition to the main allowance, which is entirely disregarded, there is also a disregard of earnings which goes some way to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Family Allowances

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider amending the Family Allowance Act to permit continuing payment of family allowance for a limited period in respect of children who have been sent to a List "D" school or other establishment from a children's hearing.

Mr. Dean: No, Sir. A child who is sent to a List "D" school or otherwise committed to care is legally removed from parental control. This is the natural point at which to stop counting the child in the family for allowances purposes.

Mr. Ewing: Does not the Minister agree that this is a punitive measure? When the Act was introduced, was not the emphasis to be placed on treatment rather than punishment, and on what grounds does the Minister justify continuing the punishment aspect? Will he say why, when the eldest child of a family of two, three or more children gets into trouble, the family allowance is stopped for other children further down the age list on the basis that the eldest child is the qualifying child for family allowances for the other children?

Mr. Dean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, nor that this


measure is punitive. Family allowances are available to help families with the cost of bringing up their children. In these cases that cost has been entirely removed from the parents.

Abortion

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made to him following the publication of the results of recent research which indicate that mothers who have had a previous abortion are more likely to have a stillborn, premature or defective child; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): None, Sir. But I am glad that the Lane Committee will be considering this matter.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence so far produced shows that of children born to mothers who have had one abortion, about 200 are seriously handicapped, about 2,000 are likely to have mild defects and about 1,000 are stillbirths, and that it is estimated that between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of women who have had an abortion are likely to be sterile? In view of all this evidence, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reviewed the operation of the Abortion Act to make sure that abortions are limited to cases of medical necessity and are not resorted to merely to save social embarrassment?

Sir K. Joseph: I have a great respect for the two authors of the report to which my hon. Friend refers, but they are non-medical and there are possible shortcomings in the evidence and conclusions which make it unwise to depend entirely upon them. But there is a need for further research, and I am glad that the Lane Committee will be considering the views of the Wynns and will, I hope, be making its report to the House later this year.

Mr. William Price: Has the Minister any idea how long the Lane Committee is likely to take?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I have just said that I hope the report will be available later this year.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that, what-

ever the report says, the consequences of abortion have been tragic. Will he concentrate his thoughts on further advice on family planning which has an important bearing on this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: It was because the Government were so concerned about some aspects of abortion that the Lane Committee was set up. We eagerly await its advice.

War Widows' Pensions

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will award war widows' pensions to all those whose ex-Service husbands died before 3rd September 1939.

Mr. Dean: War widows' pensions are awarded by my Department only in cases where the husband's death was due to or hastened by service before 30th September 1921 or after 2nd September 1939. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for claims arising out of service during the intervening period.

Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a small and dwindling group of widows of ex-Service men of the First World War who married after their husbands were discharged from the forces and subsequently remarried after their first husband's death and are not eligible for a war widow's pension? I refer particularly to the case of Mrs. Williams, whose husband was a soldier in the First World War and was killed in action. Mrs. Williams remarried another ex-soldier who subsequently died of injuries received in the First World War and she has not received a pension. Will my hon. Friend give this kind of case particular consideration?

Mr. Dean: I remember the case which my hon. Friend has put to me. The difficulty when one makes improvements is how retrospective they can be because of the difficulty of making the assessment. I take the spirit of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister prepared to contact the Royal British Legion, which could provide him with interesting data on this and related questions to help him to assess the situation?

Mr. Dean: I am glad to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for the invaluable help it gives my Department in administering the war pensions scheme and trying to improve it.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now provide behind-the-ear aids for all deaf people who can benefit from them.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. We have not yet completed our consideration of the many relevant issues.

Mr. Ashley: Would the Minister care either to get on with the trick or change his line of patter? When I asked a similar Question in February 1972, more than a year ago, he said that he was actively considering. In March he was seriously considering. In May he was expediting his study. In July he was looking into it. In August he said that there was no unnecessary delay. In December he was still looking into it. Today he says that he has not yet completed his study. Would it not be a good idea for the Minister, instead of parroting phrases, to give proper consideration to deaf people who cannot afford to buy expensive hearing aids?

Mr. Alison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by the appearance of the word "completion" in this saga. We are moving steadily towards completion. The hon. Gentleman will be amongst those who appreciate the need to integrate carefully questions of appliances with clinical treatment involving medical and para-medical personnel. It is better to hasten slowly towards a fully effective conclusion.

Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the behind-the-ear hearing aids which are the subject of the Question have been in existence for many years? Is it not difficult to understand why it should take his Department so long to investigate this problem? As the studies are now nearing completion, will he say that he will give his conclusions to the House within the next two or three months?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend may not realise that the problem is not one of appreciating the refinements of either the

Medresco aids which are currently supplied or the commercial head-worn aids that are now on the market. It is the more complex question of changing over from one form of hearing aid to another in the National Health Service in the context of a full clinical assessment of needs and the full range of audiological support that such an operation entails.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his Department started this inquiry in 1966 and that he has had his interdepartmental report on hearing research since April 1972? Does it not emerge from the moving account of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday that anyone who has suffered damage to his hearing mechanism is concerned not only with the cosmetic aspect but with psychological and other problems? If the 2¼ million deaf people, half of whom do not yet have hearing aids, are to benefit from behind-the-ear aids, the Minister must move far more quickly.

Mr. Alison: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, while the cosmetic aspect is an important element and indeed has a psychological factor to contribute, we must not underrate the success and the value of the Medresco aids to those who use them.

Pensioners' Homes (Insulation)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in his discussions with local authorities and voluntary bodies about the need to insulate the homes of retirement pensioners to prevent heating loss.

Sir K. Joseph: A joint circular was issued to local authorities and a number of voluntary bodies in August last year by my Department and the Department of the Environment suggesting steps which could be taken to improve living conditions of elderly people, including draught exclusion and better insulation.

Mrs. Castle: What is the good of a circular? When will the Government take action and publish a detailed report showing what action has been taken? Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the importance of


insulation was a gimmick to avoid paying an adequate heating allowance? Is he not aware that, unless the wind is whistling through the walls, the maximum an old-age pensioner can get in heating allowance is 90p a week? Will he confirm or deny that the number of pensioners currently receiving this allowance is between 2,000 and 3,000 out of 2 million-odd pensioners on supplementary benefit?

Sir K. Joseph: My reference to insulation was not a gimmick, nor was it meant to distract attention from the additional money which the Government are now proposing to make available from 1st October by way of heating additions because we are removing the offset of the long-term addition. Insulation remains a matter of crucial importance and the Government hope that local authorities and voluntary bodies will more and more—although this cannot happen overnight—improve the insulation of some dwellings of the elderly which desperately need it.

Mr. Crouch: Since my right hon. Friend has underlined the importance of insulation, would it not be of great assistance if the Secretary of State for the Environment did all he could to raise building standards and thus to improve insulation for these pensioners?

Sir K. Joseph: The real task lies in the improvement of existing buildings rather than of new buildings. It is the existing buildings that need insulation and the process is often relatively cheap —the sort of insulation which a man about the house can supply but which elderly spinsters or widows cannot supply for themselves. This is why the churches and voluntary bodies, working in the neighbourhood and in co-operation with local authorities, can do a power of good.

Mr. John Silkin: The Secretary of State has forgotten the last part of the supplementary question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Will he please confirm or deny that the number of elderly pensioners who receive the maximum heating allowance of 90p a week is between 2,000 and 3,000?

Sir K. Joseph: I have not precise figures because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I suspect that the figure may

be of that order. The right hon. Lady did not table that precise question. There is a heating component in the supplementary benefit allowance and the extra is an addition. That extra will be paid without offset in terms of the long-term addition from 1st October and from that date about 400,000 supplementary pensioners will get benefit by way of an additional allowance.

Young Offenders

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, until such time as the proposals for the intermediate treatment of young offenders laid down in the Children and Young Offenders Act 1969 come into effect, he will consider making funds available for a wider use by supervising officers of courses at outdoor pursuit centres provided by voluntary organisations.

Sir K. Joseph: Local authorities already have powers which could be used to make grants for this purpose.

Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend see any limit to the resources which are available for this facility? Is this matter given encouragement by his Department or is it left entirely to local authorities?

Sir K. Joseph: There is certainly a limit because of all the tasks which local authorities have to face, but as the intermediate treatment plans are brought into finality by the regional planning committees and as they receive my approval— which I hope will be during this year— in most cases the opportunity for intermediate treatment and the budgets locally allotted for the purpose should increase in each region.

Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authority resources are largely taken up by social work departments in replacing family allowances which his Department takes away from the children when they are committed?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that is absolute rubbish. But if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a Question I shall, so far as I am able to gather the information without disproportionate effort, seek to look into it.

Alcoholism (Treatment)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate a comparative study of the success ratios of different methods of treatment for alcoholism; and if he will publish his findings.

Sir K. Joseph: The Addiction Research Unit of the Institute of Psychiatry has been conducting research into the success ratios of different methods of treatment of alcoholism and its findings are expected to be published in due course.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the method of treatment used, after-care of the patient is particularly important? Is he satisfied that sufficient help goes to organisations which are able to offer this sort of service?

Sir K. Joseph: Sufficient, no—but much increased, yes. The Government set aside £2 million in the autumn of 1970, out of which a great increase is now being provided in the number of treatment beds within the National Health Service and from which there are extra grants for advice centres and hostels supplied by voluntary bodies. I pay tribute to those voluntary bodies which take on this work, because it is important to give help to those who need it as rapidly as possible.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that public money is being spent on research into the problem of alcoholism? Can he say whether the brewers have indicated their willingness to contribute to research into this subject?

Sir K. Joseph: The £2 million to which I have referred relates to increased services to alcoholics within the National Health Service and the voluntary sector. The Government also provide from public funds money for research, and there is a fund run by a sub-unit of the Medical Research Council which receives some support from the brewing industry. I cannot say how much support is given since that is not my responsibility.

Pneumoconiosis Claims

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many

decisions the commissioner reversed in favour of claimants for industrial injury benefit arising out of claims for pneumoconiosis in 1972 and to the nearest available date in 1973.

Mr. Dean: The statistics do not show pneumoconiosis cases separately, but for the year ended 31st December 1972 the commissioner dealt with 589 industrial injuries questions, of which 187 were decided in the claimant's favour. Subsequent figures are not yet available.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does that answer to some extent substantiate the feeling that the commissioner's decisions are not treated with a great deal of favour by many people, particularly by those associated with industry? Does he not think it worth while to look into the whole procedure? Will he say on how many occasions a commissioner's decision has gone against a man who during his lifetime received a substantial pneumoconiosis pension and why on his death the commissioner has appealed even against a tribunal decision which went in the man's favour? Will he give the House information so that we may know whether the procedure adopted is fair and equitable for people in industry?

Mr. Dean: I should be unhappy if the situation in terms of the appeal procedure generally were as the hon. Gentleman outlined it, but there are some extremely difficult areas in this respect— and pneumoconiosis is one of them. For that reason the review of pneumoconiosis by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has been undertaken. We expect to have its report fairly soon and I am sure that it will give valuable guidance on the difficult areas the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. O'Malley: In view of the widespread and understandable dissatisfaction in the coalfields at the treatment of pneumoconiosis victims, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Labour Members are in favour of a comprehensive and major policy review of the whole of the pneumoconiosis legislation? Will he confirm whether the Government take a similar view?

Mr. Dean: The first thing we must do is await the report of the council which has been looking into this subject for a


considerable time in depth to see what advice it can give us.

Mr. Rowlands: If the hon. Gentleman comes to one of my weekend surgeries he will see one elderly widow after another coming in who is baffled and angry at the fact that she does not receive a pension or house coal because it has been ruled that, although her husband may have been suffering 100 per cent. disability in terms of dust in his lungs, that was not a contributory cause of his death. I hope the hon. Gentleman will change his mind. Instead of saying that this is a difficult area he should wipe the rule away altogether and establish the right of widows to receive pensions and coal in these circumstances.

Mr. Dean: As a Member representing a coal-mining area, I also see coal miners' widows in my surgeries and therefore I know something about this matter from personal experience. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the whole basis of the injuries scheme which has existed since the war—namely, that death must have been caused or aggravated by the conditions of a person's work—should be completely changed. He raises a very wide question.

Industrial Disputes (Benefit)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the length of time so far taken by his departmental investigation of the payment of supplementary benefits in industrial disputes; when he now expects to complete it; and what decision he has reached in his investigation about the provision of subsidised butter for strikers and their dependants.

Sir K. Joseph: As to the Government's review of supplementary benefit for strikers' families, I have nothing to add to my replies to my hon. Friend on 6th February and 6th March. The question of subsidising butter is being considered by Ministers.—[Vol. 850, c. 58–9; Vol. 852, c. 213–5.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If we have really decided that, rather than incur the displeasure of Mr. Vic Feather and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, we will inevitably require the taxpayer to subsidise those who strike in defiance of legislation which the Government have chosen to pass, might it be

better that we should say so rather than proceed much longer with the farce of this interdepartmental investigation?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, but I must tell my hon. Friend that this has not been a charade. If he is distressed, as he may well be, by the length of time that Ministers are taking, I could, under pressure of examination, disclose other subjects, alas, on which we are taking even longer, because there are some very difficult issues involved.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State draw his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in the building industry there is a thing called lump labour, which means that certain people are not paying their national insurance contributions, some people are actually drawing their dole and working and some who should be paying taxes are not paying them? Will the Government do something about this, which is much more serious than the sort of nonsense that the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) raises every so often?

Sir K. Joseph: I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that the responsibility to which he refers is not mine but is at present being tackled by the Government. In so far as there is abuse, the recent Fisher Report drew attention to some aspects of the lump.

Mental Hospitals

Mr. Roger White: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the hospital building programme will have on alleviating the conditions in mental hospitals.

Sir K. Joseph: The programme helps by providing local services in replacement of those in mental hospitals and by improvement schemes in the mental hospitals themselves.

Mr. White: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the renovated workhouse-type hospital is totally inadequate in terms of modern mental medical techniques. Will he therefore ensure that, within the hospital building programme, purpose-built hospitals are erected for patients who are in so much need?

Sir K. Joseph: The present Government have raised the capital expenditure on psychiatric hospitals, mental illness


and mental handicap by over 80 per cent. in real terms, comparing 1972–73 with three years ago, which is a pretty notable increase. But good psychiatric techniques can be practised in old buildings and there are some first-class psychiatric services in some of our older hospitals.

Mr. McGuire: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real aim should be to use the beds available wisely and to rehabilitate the people in mental hospitals back into the mainstream of civilian life? If that is so, can he say why a family in my constituency who want to have their daughter, the victim of a broken marriage, transferred to a hospital nearer where they live so that they can aid her rehabilitation into civilian life have been told that there are regional groupings and that because the family live outside the regional hospital grouping where the daughter is confined, until a transfer is found she will have to remain there, to the discomfort of herself and to the dismay of her family? This will delay her rehabilitation. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about it?

Sir K. Joseph: The country is desperately short of community facilities for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and this is what is preventing the hospitals from carrying out their proper functions. This Government, by extra money and by a White Paper on mental handicap and a circular on mental illness, have set in hand an improvement and an increase in the community services, which I have said will take 10 years to produce good results and 15 years to produce first-class results. But the improvements are in hand.

Hospital Capital Expenditure

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the difference between the overall hospital capital expenditure for the current year programme compared with that of 1969–70.

Sir K. Joseph: Hospital capital expenditure in 1972–73 is estimated to be about £183 million compared with £101 million in 1969–70; this represents an increase in real terms of just over 50 per cent.

Mr. Winterton: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging

reply, which I am sure will be very welcome? What emphasis has he managed to place on the deprived sectors, such as the mentally ill, the chronically ill, the disabled and the long-stay patients?

Sir K. Joseph: A disproportionately large increase has been deliberately made in the non-acute sector. I have just said that an 80 per cent. increase in real terms has been made between the two years I mentioned in capital expenditure on mental handicap and mental illness, and almost as big an increase in services for the elderly.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a generally-accepted need to make preventive and curative medicine less hospital-oriented? What are his plans for reducing the proportion of the total National Health Service expenditure spent on hospitals and increasing the proportion spent on general practitioners and community services?

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Lady cares to put down a Question, I will give her the precise answer, but the general position is that, in each year for which the present Government have been responsible, there has been a shift, within the rising real expenditure on the health and personal and social services, away from hospitals towards the community services. That is deliberate and it will continue.

Speech Therapy

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take following the publication of the Quirk Report on Speech Therapy.

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between his Department and the county councils in supplying an adequate national coverage of speech therapists to deal with adult patients as well as children; and what coordination there is on speech therapy research.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, following the Quirk Report, he will increase the number of speech therapists employed by his Department.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, Scotland and Wales are considering the recommendations in the Quirk Report, including those for a unified service, an increase in the number of speech therapists and an expanded programme of research. There is close co-operation between the Departments.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend say that the Government will accept the target of 2,500 speech therapists which the Quirk Report recommended? In connection with this, will he bear in mind the importance of ensuring an increase in the supply when the Government are having an increase in the expansion of nursery education? If this is to be effective in detecting impediments and speech difficulties among young children, does he agree that we must have the requisite number of speech therapists in order to take advantage of the nursery education programme?

Mr. Alison: We do not dispute at all the vital contribution that speech therapists can make in precisely the field to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. As for accepting at this point the target figure which the Quirk recommendation includes, we could not do so until our comprehensive consultations with all interested parties are completed. They are in train at present.

Mr. Redmond: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also look into the problem of deaf children who can be given the priceless gift of language if they have speech therapy at the right age?

Mr. Alison: Yes, we certainly understand the vital connection here; indeed the Quirk Report itself refers to this aspect and makes recommendations.

Family Planning

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he intends to offer to doctors about the interpretations of "social need" in the new rules for family planning.

Sir K. Joseph: The arrangements which I announced on 26th March provide for family planning advice and treatment to be available free to all and for supplies to be subject only to the stan-

dard prescription charge except in exempted cases when they would be free. The category of "social need" which was necessary under the 12th December proposals does not now apply.

Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that almost certainly there will be mounting pressure to switch from the system of making standard prescription charges to the provision of completely free facilities? Is he confident that he can withstand this pressure indefinitely?

Sir K. Joseph: As always I shall rely on the force of rational argument in the House, which I am sure will prevail.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the mechanics for collection of prescription charges from clinics at present under local health authorities and those run by the Family Planning Association? How will it be arranged?

Sir K. Joseph: All this change will come into effect only from 1st April next year, when it will be the National Health Service and not local authorities which will be responsible.

Mr. Fell: Do the supplies include vasectomy and sterilisation?

Sir K. Joseph: The sterilisation and vasectomy provision is already made in the National Health Service for medical cases. I should like to have notice of my hon. Friend's question so that I can make sure that I give the reply precisely.

Area Health Authorities

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he will be giving to the proposed new area health authorities about co-operation with voluntary bodies and associations in their areas.

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot yet add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) on 26th February—[Vol. 851, c. 302–3.]

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that the very strong local associations which appertain to hospitals, particularly in my part of the world, are in no way damaged by the reorganisation which is about to take place?

Sir K. Joseph: The present Government have multiplied tenfold the public money going to support the headquarters of voluntary bodies. Ministers of the present Government are intensely enthusiastic about voluntary service and will do everything possible to encourage it.

Attendance Allowance

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the consultation that takes place between his Department and the medical practitioner of a person seeking a constant attendance allowance.

Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. On receipt of a claim for attendance allowance, the Attendance Allowance Board requests the disabled person's own medical practitioner to visit him and submit a report. This report is supplemented by additional evidence when the claimant's doctor thinks that would be helpful. In cases of special doubt or difficulty the Attendance Allowance Board may ask the doctor for additional information.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that in spite of that reply there is widespread criticism by the local doctor and very often by the social worker of the person who is applying for an attendance allowance and whose claim they are supposed to be supporting? With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that shows that there is not widespread agreement. In view of the financial sacrifices made by many people who keep their relatives at home rather than in hospital, is it not time that we showed a little more humanity on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore suggest that, where there are questions of doubt, a doctor from his Department should examine the person concerned before any decision is made? That is not the practice at present.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair. There are 90,000 of these new allowances in payment already. They are increasing week by week as the new rate of allowance comes into operation. Of course there are lessons to be learned, and we have not yet got the administration right. But there is close co-operation between general practitioners, social workers and doctors who have to make the eventual judgment.

Mr. Waddington: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us think that

the Attendance Allowance Board is still interpreting the regulations in a very restrictive fashion? I appreciate that an unsuccessful applicant, after a review, cannot appeal to the Secretary of State, but will my hon. Friend look at one particular case in my constituency where there seems to have been refusal on a review in the most obvious case?

Mr. Dean: I should be glad to look at the case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend or, indeed, any case raised by any other hon. Member which he feels should be looked at again. There is the review procedure, which provides for a great deal of flexibility in this area.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Undersecretary aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) sounded rather complacent? Is he satisfied with the way in which, for example, renal dialysis patients are being treated? Is he aware that we on the Opposition side of the House are not satisfied? Will he look again at the very important matter raised by this Question?

Mr. Dean: Yes. What I am saying is that the allowance is being extended. This is a new allowance. Of course we are not satisfied, and it is for that reason that the extension is now taking place. We shall bring it forward as quickly as possible.

Mr. Fry: Is it not to the great credit of the Government that the constant attendance allowance has not only been introduced but is being extended this year so that many who have been denied the allowance will qualify for a reduced allowance this autumn and about 250,000 extra people will be helped? Is not that to the great credit of my right hon. Friend and the present administration?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter into perspective. That does not mean that we are complacent. We are acting as fast as we can to see that still more people become eligible for the allowance and get it paid.

TRADE UNIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Ql. Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the


Library a copy of his public speech to the London Universities Conservative Association on 16th March on the relationship between the Government and trade unions.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made to London University Conservative Association on 16th March 1973 on Government and trade unions.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the London University Conservative Association in London on 16th March on the economy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 19th March, Sir.

Mr. Ashton: In that speech the Prime Minister said that he was concerned with the unfairnesses embedded in present-day society. Is he aware that the trade unions are also concerned about his potential unfairnesses in helping owner-occupiers with high interest rates and doing nothing about rents? Is he also aware that the trade unions, while wishing to see some aid given to owner-occupiers with regard to the 10 per cent. interest rates, expect at the same time that the present rent increases will be curtailed, so that there is fairness to all sections of the community?

The Prime Minister: We have already dealt with the particular question of rebates by increasing them greatly at the beginning of the year after we had discussions with the trade unions.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend recall what he said in his speech about people who never go on strike? Does he not therefore welcome the news today that 69 per cent. of the miners have shown restraint? Will he express the hope that some other people might follow their example?

The Prime Minister: The whole House will welcome the balloted decision of the miners. More and more people are beginning to realise how irrelevant any action on 1st May will be.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that this time last year it cost him

more than £100 million to pay off the miners after the seven-week strike? Does he not remember that in order to stop it on this occasion he introduced a Bill costing £1,200 million in an attempt to buy them off? If the miners carry matters a stage further next year, it will take even more money to buy them off.

The Prime Minister: I do not regard the investment in the coal industry as buying off the miners. What the investment in the coal industry is designed to do is to safeguard the living of the miners but above all to safeguard the fuel supplies of this country.

Mr. Adley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed one-day strike on 1st May will be about the most irrelevant event of the decade? Does it not show that not only the TUC but also the Labour Party appear to be totally out of touch now with the feeling of the country as expressed by the miners today?

The Prime Minister: I have just said that more and more people are recognising—and saying so in the trade union movement—that it is irrelevant. It will not change the Government's position. Stage 2 is now in operation. I understand that some 50 settlements covering about a million workers have already been made under stage 2. The whole thing, therefore, is pointless. What would be much more to the point would be if the Leader of the Opposition told the House what his real position is on this matter.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I have repeatedly stated my position. Will the right hon. Gentleman now state his? As he has refused, on four occasions when I have asked him, to take any action on mortgage interest rates until he has now been pushed into it, will he say whether we can now expect a statement today or tomorrow, because this is of interest to millions of families whom he has let down?

The Prime Minister: If the Government think it right to make a statement, they will do so. But meanwhile it would be of interest if the Leader of the Opposition would say whether on 1st May he proposes to act, to strike or to abstain.

RATES

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement with regard to the communication he sent to Alderman W. Sefton concerning the rate problems of the major cities.

The Prime Minister: In reply to letters from Alderman Sefton, I have referred him to the Government's announcement of extra rate relief to domestic ratepayers most affected by revaluation and to our intention to press on with discussions about the formula for the distribution of grant to the new authorities in 1974–75. I have also told him that his proposal to introduce a new grant system before 1974 would be impracticable.

Mr. Kaufman: Why did the right hon. Gentleman bring the representatives of the great cities to No. 10 Downing Street on a wild goose chase to discuss the financial problems affecting the great cities when, even before that meeting took place, he had decided to do nothing to help with those financial problems, apart from the footling aid to a tiny minority of those adversely affected by the rating revaluation? Is this deception, together with higher rents, higher mortgages, higher food prices and VAT, creating the right atmosphere for phase 2?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite unjustified in what he has said. It is entirely opposed to what the leaders of the cities have said in their letters which they have written to me since, including Alderman Sefton, with whom I have had a very friendly correspondence. Those who will benefit from the action that we have taken, who are the ones suffering particularly from revaluation, do not take the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend inform Alderman Sefton that if he wishes to limit the expenditure of Liverpool Corporation he might abandon his proposal to spend another £10 million on Speke airport?

The Prime Minister: I specifically said to the cities, and indeed, to all the local authorities, that I would not discuss specific items with them. However, it is of importance that since the Department of the Environment took up the monitoring of local authority finances more than £10

million has been saved on the present rate expenditure for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Terry Davis: If the Prime Minister felt able to enter into correspondence with Alderman Sefton of Liverpool City Council, may I ask why he did not feel able to send a personal reply to the letter which he received from the chairman of the finance committee of Worcestershire County Council?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to look into that matter. The correspondence which I have had from Alderman Sefton was on behalf of the six cities. It is obviously not possible for me personally to answer letters from all the local authorities. These matters are dealt with by the Department of the Environment. If there was a particular reason I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech he made on 16th March 1973 in Bromley on strikes.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on industrial relations made at Bromley on 16th March.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Bromley on 16th March on economic and industrial affairs.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 19th March, Sir.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister recall stating in that speech that sub-stanial pay increases were available under phase 2 to the lowest-paid, including hospital workers? Is he aware that they will probably be worse off by the autumn, given the expected rise in the cost of living, notably in food prices and mortgage charges? Why not admit that the prices side of phase 2 is not now developing to plan?

The Prime Minister: The point that I made about the hospital workers was that they could have been receiving the


award under phase 2 from the week beginning 14th March. The same applies to the civil servants. They could be receiving their increase from 1st April. I wish to emphasise that point. However, I do not accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the end of phase 2.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons for strikes has been his own boring posture of silly sabre-rattling in the direction of the trade unions? Has not the time now come when he should treat trade unionists as normal human beings, which they are?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to sustain any thesis of that kind when one sees the extent to which the trade unions have cooperated throughout the standstill. It has not been necessary to issue one order in respect of a breach. As I have said, in more than 50 settlements they have already accepted phase 2 and are operating it.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Was not one of the messages in that speech that there is too much conservatism in industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that conservatism with a small "c", just like liberalism with a small "1", is potentially disastrous to the country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that both sides of industry would do well to recognise that change is their ally?

The Prime Minister: All I have to add to my hon. Friend's list is socialism with either a small or a big "s". I quite agree with him in quoting again the title of the pamphlet which we wrote 20 years ago. It was this theme which was the basis of my speech.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman has just said how much he appreciates the co-operation that he has had from the trade unions. Would it not be a good gesture now on his part to show his appreciation by withdrawing the Industrial Relations Act, which has failed anyway?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think it is clear from recent statements that I am no longer being asked to do that. I am being asked to consider certain specific amendments, and that I have always said I am fully prepared to do.

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an official visit to South Africa.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) on 27th March. —[Vol. 853, c. 1095–6.]

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister now able to confirm that the Government are agreeable to the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to investigate the standards of British firms operating in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: There have been discussions about this matter between my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and the Opposition. I stated my position clearly last week. It is for a Committee of this House to decide whether it is appropriate for it to make inquiries of any particular kind, including this one.

Mr.Biggs-Davison: . If there is to be such an investigation, may I ask whether it would be right, helpful and informative to have a similar investigation into the wages paid in other developing countries?

The Prime Minister: This, again, is a matter for a Select Committee if, as I said, it
deems it right and appropriate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1096.]
However, I do not think anybody would deny that there are also deep-rooted problems about the standard of living of people in all the developing countries, and this means to a large extent the level of wages.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In anticipation of a possible visit to South Africa by a Select Committee of this House, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to ensure that his Department gets as much information as possible from South Africa about wages being paid by British firms there? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what instructions and political advice are being given by trade


missions to South Africa financed by his Department?

The Prime Minister: The advice which is given regarding wages has been published and is made available to every firm. It emphasises the opportunities which they have for increasing wages and raising the standard of living of their employees. That information is also in the hands of trade missions which go to South Africa. I think that information about the practices of individual British firms could be available in London.

Mr. Ridley: Will my right hon. Friend also consider setting up a Select Committee to inquire into the reasons why wages and the standard of living are so much higher in capitalist countries like America?

The Prime Minister: I take my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that it requires a Select Committee to go into this question to recognise the enormous advances which have been made through technology, the removal of restrictive practices and in other ways in some Western countries.

NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of New Zealand to make an official visit to London.

The Prime Minister: The New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister is at present visiting London but, as I told the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on the 29th March, there are at present no plans for Mr. Kirk to do so, though he would always be welcome.— [Vol. 853, c. 393.]

Mr. Dalyell: Since New Zealand is understandably concerned about the French nuclear tests, may I ask whether we can count on the Prime Minister to go shoulder to shoulder with the Duke of Edinburgh up the Champs Elysées?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot count on my going off in a frigate into the Pacific.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Services concerning the effect of revaluation for rating on social services.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: In view of the fact that many social service projects to help the disabled will be butchered as a result of the Government's policy of revaluation, does the Prime Minister intend to stand aside and allow this to happen or will he now intervene to ensure that projects to help the disabled are preserved by local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give an all-embracing undertaking of that kind. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have very great sympathy with social service projects of this sort. I myself opened a magnificent one in Newcastle only 10 days ago. I think that that is a sufficient guarantee that we we shall do all we can to help.

Mr. Marks: Will the Prime Minister confirm that after the monitoring by the Department of the Environment the rate demand in cities like Manchester will be reasonable in view of their social problems?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to to confirm a judgment of this kind. It must be for the electors in Manchester.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present Government have done more for the disabled than many of their predecessors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Any."]—and that this Government will continue to protect the disabled against the effects of inflation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have pledged ourselves to do this for old-age pensioners, for Service pensioners and for the disabled. It is now widely recognised that this Government have been able to do more than their predecessors, especially for the disabled.

CONTAINER AND PACKAGING CONTROL BILL

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to regulate the use of materials for containers and packaging; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is in some ways reminiscent of the Unit Pricing Bill which I introduced last year in that it has as one of its aims the affording of extra protection to the housewife in her struggle against inflation and to get better value for money. I hope that the Government will feel as sympathetic to this Bill as they did to my last one. It comes at an opportune moment in that only yesterday the Consumers Union published the results of a survey on packaging which shows that some 94 per cent. of housewives would prefer less extravagant packaging and lower prices and that 85 per cent. indicated a willingness to place their household refuse in separate containers for glass, metal, paper, plastic and food waste if that could lead to a saving or to some stabilisation in rates. No wonder there is general concern because, as a recent article in the Daily Mail put it, the most expensive mouth to feed in Britain today is the dustbin.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State a chance to contain the dustbin's appetite and in the process to strike one of the most effective blows for those who treasure our remaining rural and urban delights and who see them daily violated by the trash-can legacy of the pleasure seekers or unwillingly despoiled by the frenzied frustration of those who are charged with the daunting task of dealing with the nation's rubbish.
That some discipline is necessary is obvious to anyone who walks a trolley round a supermarket or a dog through the countryside. The shelves are glossy with elaborate packages which inflate the prices of the products they contain, and all too often have a hedgerow afterlife that is nasty, brutish and prolonged.
We are dealing with an enormous problem. Almost a million tons of plastics were used last year plus 750 million paper bags, 10,000 million cans and 375 million aerosols. In 1972 industry spent £1,035 million on packaging, of which some £650

million went straight into dustbins and on to rubbish heaps. Once there, responsibility for its removal rests with the local authorities, who four years ago were spending £66 million a year on collection and disposal. It is reckoned that by 1980 each householder will produce 32 lbs. of refuse a week.
It is not only the weight which causes difficulties, but the volume. Without a doubt the largest increase in volume has resulted from the more extensive packaging of goods. An official report put the percentage of packaging in household refuse at 60 per cent. by volume and said that it would rise to 75 per cent. by 1980.
What happens to it all? At the moment about 80 per cent. of all our rubbish goes straight into holes in the ground, under controlled conditions. Incineration accounts for very little. It is an expensive alternative. As an increasing amount of packaging is formed of indestructible plastic, it will never be broken down by the agencies of time and decay. It will lie there for ever, a needless and ugly blight upon future generations—
A plastic bottle is a bane for ever: its ugliness increases. It will never pass into nothingness.
All this is done in the name of convenience which manufacturers seem to put next to godliness and which, after all, is rather more profitable.
I do not advocate a return to the paper bag era or to the unwrapped and the unhygienic. I seek moderation in all things. Is it necessary that a sauce bottle should be contained in a box which has a picture of that very bottle on the outside? It is sheer waste. Is it necessary for shoe laces to be contained in a hygienic plastic bubble when they could be handed over the counter as shoe laces? Is it necessary that eyeshade in a tiny container should be in a large box with plastic and other materials inside not contributing to the product at all? As for the aerosol, so many products which could equally well be sold in bottles are put into aerosol containers, and the average price of the container alone is about 8p. Is it essential that a certain brand of cologne should have a third of its price accounted for by packaging?
Cannot we call a halt also to the expensive laziness which lies behind the non-returnable bottle, and can we allow our dairies to go over to the plastic bottle? There is a threat that within a few years every bottle of milk will be a plastic bottle. The Friends of the Earth have conducted a survey showing that in one year alone 11,680 million bottles will require to be disposed of. That is enough to build six columns to the moon—not the kind of serious contribution to the space race that we should make. Alternatively, there could be enough in a fortnight to encircle the earth three times with the wretched things.
I appreciate that the Bill has its limitations. But its very flexibility would give the Secretary of State, without assuming Draconian powers, the ability to say, "Hold. Enough", and to examine and advise.
Whether our watchword is anti-inflation or anti-pollution, we cannot afford to do nothing. T. S. Elliot once said of the twentieth century that its only memorial would be the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls. Even worse would be a thousand empty Coke cans.
For the sake of the housewife of today and the rambler of tomorrow and, above all, to show that we are conscious that the problem must be tackled sooner rather than later, I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Cormack, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Ernie Money, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Edward Taylor, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. David Clark, Mr. Peter Hardy, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Frank Judd.

CONTAINER AND PACKAGING CONTROL

Bill to empower the Secretary of State to regulate the use of materials for containers and packaging; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th May and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (PRICES)

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that food prices under the Common Agricultural Policy are already too high, calls upon Her Majesty's Government, as a matter of vital national interest, not to accept any further general increase in EEC prices.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to inform the House that I have selected the Government's amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Motion and to add instead thereof.
endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to give the highest priority to combating inflation in the European Economic Community's overall interest; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's initiative in pressing for means of support other than raising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Mr. Shore: This is a careful and modest motion designed not to cause controversy here but to unite behind the Minister the overwhelming sentiment of Parliament and the people on two basic principles about the common agricultural policy— first, that food prices in the Common Market are already too high and, second, that they must not be allowed to rise further in the year ahead.
We do not seek to tie the Minister down in any unreasonable way. If, as I had very much hoped, he had accepted our motion and thus opposed any large increases in prices, he would still have been able to agree, if the evidence had been sufficiently convincing, to adjustments upwards and downwards according to sensible criteria of supply and demand for individual products. In other words, it would have been open to him to agree to cuts in the price of butter and to consider on their merits proposals for increases.
All that we are seeking to rule out is any across-the-board increase affecting


butter, cereals, sugar and other main agricultural commodities. We were emboldened because we knew that we were doing no more than the Minister had allowed us to believe that he would wish to do. In the statement which he made last Wednesday he said that he was opposed to any across-the-board price increase in Europe this year.
We think it right to debate the matter on a formal motion because the issue of food prices is the most important single issue of the day. It is our view that the matter should be decided in the House by the elected representatives of the British people. It should not be decided by Eurocrats and by Ministers meeting in Brussels.
I do not think that anyone will doubt that it is crucial to our standard of living and, above all, to the living standards of the less prosperous part of the nation, to keep our food prices stable and, if possible to reduce them. I shall not burden the House with any unnecessary figures, but the extent to which our living standard is being threatened by rising food prices is not yet sufficiently understood and known, even in this House.
When we last debated food prices on 3rd November during the Queen's Speech I drew attention to the fact that the rise in food prices was accelerating, and that during the last two years prices had risen on average by 10 per cent. a year. I said that in the previous three months— that is May to August 1972, which was the latest available figure—the rate had risen to 14·5 per cent. per annum. That debate took place on the eve of the Government's so-called prices and incomes freeze.
Since the freeze, far from slowing down, the rate of food price increases has further accelerated. In the three months between mid-November and mid-February, prices have risen by a full 5 per cent., or at an annual rate of 20 per cent. Some prices have increased, of course, far beyond that average figure. I regret to say that there is no sign that the upward march has been significantly checked. Only today we had fresh evidence from the Food Manufacturers' Federation of what is in store for us during this year. On the Federation's estimates, if I have them correctly, butter

prices are to rise by 24 per cent., sugar prices by 18 per cent., meat prices by 12 per cent., fish prices by 10 per cent. and dried egg prices by 20 per cent. That is its own estimate.
Not only is it essential to reduce price increases for social reasons, or to ease the strain on older people, on families and on the lower paid, but it is crucial to the success of any sort of counter-inflation policy.
A thought which must pray on the Minister's mind as we enter phase 2 of the Government's so-called counter-inflation policy—this applies not only to the Minister but to all his Front Bench colleagues—is that the great mass of our people do not begin to understand how it is that when their incomes are frozen or severely restrained by Government action, the same Government should do nothing to prevent prices rising in foodstuffs, in rents and mortgages, and in house and land values. Worse, in many cases—witness VAT this week—the Government make things worse by directly increasing prices through their own actions.
Part of the Government's direct responsibility for putting up prices is their acceptance of the Common Market's regulation of our food prices. Of course, the Minister does not like to be reminded of that. He would like the nation to believe that rising food prices have nothing to do with what we regard—and I think correctly—as the incompetence and folly of his right hon. Friends who negotiated the Treaty of Accession.
The Minister has been sedulously spreading the myth that all our misfortunes are due to movements in world prices, over which we have no control. That is only part of the story. On 1st March, the Minister made his first increase in sugar prices. We had a debate on further increases only last night. The first increase was a direct consequence of the Common Market rule that we have to phase out our present sugar subsidy. The second sugar increase will take place on 1st May and the third on 1st July.
We have had to abandon the bacon stabilisation scheme under which, as with sugar, bacon had been previously subsidised. The first price increase due to Common Market bacon policy took place on 1st March, and we shall have two further increases by the summer. They


cannot be less than 3p a 1b. I think that I am being modest in giving that figure.
Unhappily that is not all. Butter is to be increased on 1st May—and we have the Minister's authority for this—by the incredible figure of £86 a ton or 4p a lb. As the Minister knows full well, that is the first of six increases over the next five years, at the end of which our butter prices will be almost 150 per cent. more than they are today. That is a direct consequence of the Common Market's food policy.
Can the Minister confirm what we read in the papers about the reported sale of Common Market butter at cut prices to the Soviet Union? I am all for helping developing countries. I should not wish to be unfriendly in any way to a great country with which I hope we shall have ever more friendly relations in the future. However, to sell to the Soviet Union, if the reports are correct, 200,000 tons of butter at the price of £150 a ton—that is one-quarter or one-fifth of the real price not only in Europe but, as it will become, in Britain, the cost in subsidies to those who produce the surplus being over £120 million—is sheer madness. Let us hope that we have a denial from the Minister.
The last foodstuff which I shall mention is beef. As the British housewife knows, prices rose in five days in December by as much as they were supposed to rise in five years of Common Market membership. Do not let the Minister say that that had nothing to do with the Common Market. In fact, it had. Of course, there were many factors at work. One was that last year 10 per cent. of the total production of British beef went out of Britain into Europe. That was because the prices in Europe had gone up owing to its premature policy of slaughtering beef in 1970 in order to help reduce the butter mountain. The result was a shortage of beef. Meat was sucked out of this country at the high prices then on offer, and the Minister did nothing to seek to arrest that movement.
There is a threat of a further increase of over 10 per cent. under the Community's proposals which are now before the Council of Ministers, and which were again referred to yesterday in the Food Manufacturers' Federation forecast of

increased prices this year. No wonder the Minister said last night:
… the food prices peak has not yet been reached.
I now turn not to the rise in British food prices up to existing Common Market levels but to the proposals for a further across-the-board increase in CAP prices which are before the Council of Ministers this week. From what the Minister told the House last Wednesday it seems that that is precisely the point to which he has the most vehement objections. Resistance to further price increases is wholly consistent with the passage in his own amendment which refers to
means of support other than rising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.",
an interesting and significant phrase which I hope he will elaborate.
Here we have, or should have, a substantial measure of agreement, as will become clear when we consider those central features of the CAP that we on this side, and, I hope the Government, will seek to change. Let me say what is wrong with the CAP, and what are the central features we seek to change.
First, it is grossly protectionist. In the EEC's making Europe substantially self-sufficient in the main foodstuffs, regardless of Europe's competitiveness with countries outside, food is produced inside the Common Market at a far higher price than would otherwise be necessary, and the standard of living of the European people is correspondingly lower.
Secondly, the method of support and production for European farmers used in the CAP—basically a guaranteed price for an open-ended quantity of production—leads inevitably to a continuing and chronic problem of over-production. The butter mountain of 400,000 tons that has built up is not the first butter mountain we have had. Only two or three years ago a similar mountain existed. Other commodities are constantly in surplus production. The ingenuity and resource of the engineering industry in the Community is constantly fashioning new machines to denature and destroy that which the earth of Europe grows each year.
As for the Intervention Board set up in this country, if my information is correct, all over Britain empty storage capacity is being bought up and leased by the board to take food out of the British market, to take it away from the British consumer, who might otherwise have what is available at a lower price, and to put it in the stores so that prices can be maintained at an artificially high level.
The third objection to the CAP is that the chronic tendency to over-produce is a major disrupting influence in world trade. The disruption occurs not only because low-cost producers like New Zealand are denied access to the European market but because European surpluses are dumped on world markets at ludicrous prices. I should like to illustrate that and to drive it home as strongly as I can. Over half the annual cost of FEOGA, over £500 million a year, year in and year out, goes to pay the difference between the dumped prices of European surplus products in third markets and the price inside the Common Market.
The fourth objection is that in spite of the defects I have described the CAP gives only a partial stability to farmers generally, and fails to secure a reasonable standard of living for the poorer peasant farmer. That is acknowledged by virtually everyone. It has led to what is by Continental standards a considerable exodus from the land. That is what the Mansholt Plan for farm restructuring and pensioning-off older farmers is partially designed to meet.
The fifth objection is the way in which the CAP is financed. It is unacceptably unfair and unacceptably expensive. Contributions made to it are unrelated to the capacity to pay of individual countries or the benefits they receive in return. The contributions system the EEC introduced, which the Government in their treaty negotiations accepted, amounts to a tax on those Community members with the strongest links in both industrial and agricultural trade with the other continents of the world. In short, those— above all, Britain—that import the most food from outside the Continent of Europe will pay the bulk of the food levies. Those that trade extensively with other continents—again, Britain above all —pay by far the larger part of the

Customs duties to Brussels. That is the second part of the triple tax system employed in the financing of the CAP.
My last fundamental objection is that all those defects are reinforced by the decision to relate common agricultural prices not to the exchange rates of the individual countries, which over time inevitably change, as we have all seen, but to a permanent and irrevocable unit of account which must not be departed from, even though countries revalue, devalue or float. Thus, we have an extraordinary picture, after the last two convulsions of the dollar, in which the Germans revalued upwards, Holland and Belgium revalued as well, but not to the same extent, the Danes and French remained at par, and the Italians and British are floating at a substantially devalued level in relation to their previous parities and to the unit of account.
Instead of a single price for agricultural products, the nine nations concerned, through currency changes, have established five different price levels. To bring them into line again, the Brussels Commissioners are solemnly at work on the most elaborate system of levies and subsidies the world has ever seen. I do not believe that the system can work for much longer. It is too complicated, too susceptible to evasion, too expensive, and entirely vulnerable to a new breach in the next currency squall.
Nor am I convinced that a common agricultural policy, nor even a common price policy, requires acceptance of a fixed unit of account. During the past 14 years the countries of the EEC have gone through many exchange rate alterations as their relative competitiveness has changed. The resulting revaluations and devaluations have not, in the case of industrial goods, prevented a common market from emerging, with prices disciplined by competitive forces. That has been the experience of the steel industry and of other commodities in intra-Community trade.
Why should agriculture be different? If the relative prices of industrial goods can be changed by currency movements, why should agricultural prices be irreversibly and irrevocably fixed? Is the answer to be found in the absurd quest for a common currency in an economic and monetary union towards which the immutable unit of account for agricultural prices is seen as the first major step? I should like the


Minister's comment on that. If it is so, our determination to unmoor national prices from the unit of account will be all the stronger.
I noted with pleasure what Mr. Ertl, the German agricultural minister, said only a few days ago about not worshipping and dancing around a calf of gold, referring to the unit of account. I also noted with some interest what the right hon. Gentleman himself said on Wednesday:
I said yesterday in Brussels that I thought it a mistake to involve agriculture and monetary matters in one proposal".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1310.]
That is the beginning of sense. I shall strongly support the Minister in any move he takes to unmoor national agricultural prices from the absurd restraint of the unit of account.
I do not claim that all the defects in the CAP that I have mentioned can be cured by our motion. But the House will not have failed to note the central relevance of our demand that there should be no further increase of CAP prices. If prices can be held—better still, if they can be reduced—we shall: first, diminish the protectionism of the CAP; secondly, reduce the tendency to over-produce; thirdly, lift from world food markets the threat of European dumping; fourthly, encourage new methods of support and income for the poorer farmers, hinted at in the Government's amendment; fifthy, reduce the cost and the burden to us of the CAP budget; and sixthly, prevent the proposed across-the-board 2·76 per cent. price increase, whose sole rationale is to simplify the levy-subsidy system now at work in the Nine by bringing the prices of the Benelux countries into line with those of France and Denmark. That is the sole aim. Thus at a stroke the national objectives of short-term and long-term policy can be served by the emphatic endorsement of the motion we have on the Order Paper.
I would add as a final point that the criticisms I have made are not simply British criticisms. They have been voiced in whole or in part by all serious students of the continental food system, by Dr. Mansholt, by M. Vedel in the famous report of M. Pisani, the former French Minister of Agriculture, and most recently in the Commission discussions last month when M. Spinelli outlined an

entirely new agricultural support system One of the ironies and tragedies of the 1970–72 British negotiations is that if those negotiations had either been deferred or had been pressed more toughly, the common agricultural policy would almost certainly have been abandoned by the Six.
As it is, we have given it a new lease of life. There has now been added to the Community of Six with its chronic surpluses of agricultural production, the one great food deficit market in the world, the British food market—and, as I have sometimes said before, Britairn has become the second stomach of France. But it is one which will be filled, and filled rapidly, given the capicity of Western European to grow food, in a very few years' time. Then the same tendencies of a chronic over-production will re-emerge. To prevent this we must begin now by calling a halt to food prices.
Finally, I turn to the key words in the motion that we have moved opposing food price increases:
as a matter of vital national interest.
No one will doubt from what I have said that our national interest is vitally involved. But as those who have followed our debates have recognised, or will recognise, the words carry a special meaning within the EEC. For those are the words that express what has been accepted as the veto power of the individual member State in decision-making in the Council of Ministers. It is the form of words which was used in order to embody the French demand for a veto for their own national purposes in the great disagreement which took place and which was resolved, or partially resolved, in the summer of 1965.
So unless we have been deceived in this past year, that power lies within the power of the Minister of Agriculture to act on our behalf next week, if he wishes. It is a power which he himself claims to have. It is a power which, while he himself does not wish unnecessarily to brandish it, is essential in his dealings with the Eight. I say "essential". Of course he will need it. There is not one strong ally for the British position on food and agriculture among the nation States of the Community today. That is the situation we are in and we would be very foolish if we did not recognise


it. Hence, it is essential that we should have, and be seen to have, and be ready to use, this veto power.
Our willingness to use it is a test not just of the Minister's personal courage —that is not the point—but of the sincerity and determination of the Government to deal with this crisis of hyper-inflation and uncontrolled food prices that we are facing in Britain today.
It is his deliberate omission of these words from his own amendment to our motion that not only gives the game away about his own intensions or the intentions of the Government, but gives an unanswerable reason why this House should unite in rejecting the Government's amendment and affirming the motion that I have moved.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to give the highest priority to combating inflation in the European Economic Community's overall interest; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's initiative in pressing for means of support other than raising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.
I listened to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) with care, but I found it difficult at times to understand whether he was speaking in principle against our position in Europe altogether or against this specific question of the present debate on the common agricultural policy. We all know the attitude that he has always taken in this respect and we understand his feelings in relation to it. But this Government, like its predecessors, have always accepted that if we accepted membership of the Community we accepted the common agricultural policy. This was a matter which was made abundantly clear by the present Leader of the Opposition in a speech which has been many times quoted in this House.
It is the firm conviction of this Government, which has been supported over and over again by votes in the House, that our membership of the Community is in the national interest, that it is essential for the future prosperity of this country, and that we must participate in the enlarged

Common Market and join in the benefits that co-operation on a European scale can bring. That is our policy. We intend to pursue it to the full. The CAP is a part of the Community's organisation and, like our predecessors in office, we have accepted that and we do not propose to undermine it by direct or indirect means.
No one pretends that it is perfect or that it ought not to be modified in the light of developments. But it was an achievement on the part of the original Six member States to agree a joint policy of agricultural support and that policy was hammered out by them in long discussions. We should remember that it is a matter to which they attach great importance. They are concerned that it should not founder because of current monetary difficulties which, one has to accept, have created real problems.
The aim of CAP is to devise means of giving farmers a reasonable income—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: In France.

Mr. Godber: —in a community which is to a great extent self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs and yet has a serious problem in connection with the size and structure of agricultural holdings. That is the burning problem of European agriculture.
Almost all developed countries use some kind of system to support their farmers. A deficiency payments, free market system such as that which we have been operating since the end of the war would put a prodigious open-ended commitment on the Community's funds in years of world surplus, and to rely merely on direct income supplements to farmers would simply exacerbate the structural problem. I must therefore make it clear that we accept CAP as a reasonable method of supporting farm incomes in a society which is so largely self-sufficient as is the enlarged Community, and it is not our purpose to destroy it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14th July 1971 when he said that our entry into the Common Market would not increase the cost of living in this country by more than half of a new penny in the


pound in each of the transitional years. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view now?

Mr. Godber: The figure which has been given many times in this House is an estimate of around 2½ per cent. a year. That is the figure in relation to the cost of food, and food is, of course, one quarter of the total retail price index. Therefore, if it is around that order it is around the figure which my right hon. Friend gave.
In order to get things in the right perspective after the speech by the right hon. Member for Stepney it is as well to consider what would be the effect for this country if we were without question to accept the whole of the proposals put forward by the Commission. The effect from 1st May this year would be to add 0·2 per cent. to the retail food prices index, or 005 per cent. to the whole of the retail price index. That is the extent of the effect of the proposals, and in view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman it is as well to get those figures on the record.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House, in view of those figures, if that is the case and if the danger of a food price increase from this source is as small as he is now suggesting, why he should have said in Brussels that the whole of the Government's counter-inflation policy might be threatened if the proposed increases were to proceed?

Mr. Godber: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument on this matter. I have had to bring things back into perspective in view of the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney. In Brussels I was referring not merely to the immediate impact but to the long-term effect and that is why I said that we would wish to restrain the price increases.
All different forms of developed economies have a system of support for farmers. Merely to rely on direct income supplements to farmers would merely exacerbate the structural problems which are at the root of Europe's difficulties in this matter. We accept the CAP as a reasonable method of supporting farm incomes in a society which is so largely self-sufficient as the enlarged

Community. It is not our purpose to destroy it but on the other hand everyone must recognise the needs of the present situation. The most urgent task is the battle against inflation and the need to keep food prices in check.
Most people in the Community agree that there is an imbalance in the support between livestock and cereals which has to be put right over a time. We attach great importance to that. It is no derogation from the CAP to shift a sizeable section of support from the subsidisation of end prices to various forms of direct production subsidies. I therefore have no hestitation in emphasising to my colleagues in the Council of Ministers in Brussels the need to combat inflation to avoid, where possible, rises in retail food prices, and to consider the development of production subsidies.
I recognise, as I emphasised in my statement on our annual farm review, that in a situation of food shortage farmers will not have the confidence to produce more and to increase supplies unless they have reasonable confidence in the future and in their ability to meet rising costs and to maintain their incomes. In the battle to conquer inflation that must be in the interests of everyone, including producers. If the confidence of producers is not to be lost, as I said in Brussels, we must strive to eliminate both shortage and surplus. We can see both of these in the Community at the present time.
Labour Members frequently refer to the shortage of beef, as did the right hon. Member for Stepney. We want to see increased production in the Community as a whole, just as we want to eliminate surpluses. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about obtaining a balance in production, which we believe is important.
The other great problems we face are connected with the monetary situation. The right hon. Gentleman was correct to emphasise this, and I agree that it is a difficult problem. I do not believe anyone would deny that the CAP was originally designed to operate on a system of fixed exchange rates and that as long as these are absent the policy will be more difficult to operate. I therefore sympathise with the Commission's desire to take even a relatively small step in


order to ease the complicated situation. But in my opinion the monetary situation remains too uncertain for a speedy solution to the problem to be possible—and a solution is to be found in a monetary context rather than in an agricultural context.
As I stated in Brussels, I cannot welcome any solution which demands price rises across the board when they bear no relation to the needs and situation of the commodities concerned, when they press most heavily on those member States most beset by inflation and also help least those countries where farm incomes are most under pressure. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Herr Ertl. It is interesting to note that he and I were at different poles in our discussions in the council last week. We both agreed that the introduction of the monetary compensatory amounts in regard to the overall proposal complicated the issue. For Germany it complicates the issue because it reduces the reward from their farms. For us it gives an overall addition which we found embarrassing. We were at different ends of the spectrum but we both thought that the proposal was wrong.
At the discussions in Brussels last week each country put forward its general views on the proposal to the Commission and these varied very widely from ourselves at one end of the scale, arguing against any general rise, to the Irish at the other end, who were saying that the rises proposed by the Commission were quite inadequate. The proposals embraced two quite separate aspects. There was the 2·76 per cent. increase across the board designed by the Commission to eliminate some of the existing currency implications and, on the other hand, there were specific additional increases for certain commodities.
The highest rise proposed was for beef at 8 per cent. followed by pig meat and rye at 4 per cent. and a smaller increase of 2 per cent. for milk. All of these would be in addition to the 2·76 per cent. general rise. At the same time the proposals called for a reduction of 11 per cent. in the price of butter—and that is significant in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said—but with a compensating rise in the price of skimmed milk, and a consumer subsidy on butter which would 

work out in our currency at around 2p a lb. This is an important aspect of the proposals. On the one hand there are the across-the-board proposals linked to monetary ideas, and on the other there are specific incentives which could have advantages if they brought increased supplies of such commodities as beef.
The right hon. Member for Stepney concentrated on beef and said that prices rose as much in five days as they had risen previously in five years. That is a slight exaggeration, but they certainly rose sharply at the end of the year. He suggested that what was proposed by the Commission would represent a further increase of 10 per cent. That is not correct, as he will appreciate, because it is not a further increase over the market price level, which is substantially in excess of the community guide price level at this time. Therefore, the market price and the price in the shop would not be affected at this time if the proposals were accepted.

Mr. Fernyhough: May I take it that the 2p reduction in the price of butter will mean that butter will come down 2p a lb., or does it mean that in May it will go up 2p less than it would have done if we had paid the additional CAP charge?

Mr. Godber: What it means is that no decisions have yet been taken on the matter. If, however, the proposals put forward by the Commission were accepted in total, the second of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions would apply, namely that the increase originally expected would be less by 2p a lb. [Interruption.] That is the position. Hon. Members may laugh, but I would have thought that they were glad that the price had been reduced in this way, whatever the implications of the subsidy system.
In the context of the present level of market prices the Commission is arguing that there are reasons throughout the Community for some increase in beef prices and to a lesser extent in prices for pig meat and rye. We shall be considering these aspects in more detail in Luxembourg next week. None of these would raise consumer prices. Apart from milk, what disturbs us so much is the across-the-board addition of 2·76 per cent. This would add to the eventual prices in Britain although the immediate impact is


minimal. Because of the currency adjustment proposed it would not raise prices in Benelux or Germany.
Since Germany is the country which claims most strongly the need for higher prices for her farmers, she would get as little satisfaction at that end of the scale as we would at the other. It is clear that an agreed solution will be difficult to achieve. I made clear in my statement of 28th March the general line I have taken at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I said then that it was from the sort of position I had outlined that consideration of these proposals should begin.
We have to seek to avoid surplus production, increasing support costs and consumer prices. We have to change the balance of incentives between commodities and we have to look at the problem of each commodity on its merits, not as part of some generalised policy. Other countries have differing views on such problems. Between us we have to reach a European solution. It will be a long and difficult debate, but that will be nothing new. We must ultimately reach an agreement to which we can all subscribe and which will take account of the essential needs of European producers and consumers.
It must clearly be a solution which recognises to the full the problems of inflation and the overriding need to get to grips with it. This is the problem. It is a difficult one and we shall have to consider carefully the arguments put forward by others, just as we would expect them to look at our arguments.

Mr. Shore: We have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he finds these across-the-board increases of prices disturbing and unworkable. What the whole House and the nation wants him to say is that they are unacceptable. There can be plenty of give and take on the other matters of individual price negotiation, but what is unacceptable to us, certainly in the context of the second stage of the prices and incomes legislation, is any across-the-board price increases, unjustified by agricultural merit.

Mr. Godber: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I have chosen my words with care. We have taken a position strongly critical of this and shall

be having further discussions. It is certainly not helpful for me at this stage to spell out my position more precisely than I have done.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to various aspects of food prices. It is necessary to get the position in perspective in the light of what he said. Well over half the food we eat is manufactured food which has been subject to the standstill arrangements. There has been only a 1 per cent. rise in the price of manufactured food since last November.
This has meant real difficulties for food manufacturers. Between November and February the cost of their raw materials and fuel went up by 15 per cent. I pay tribute to them for what they have done to help moderate the rate of inflation during a period when, whatever hon. Members opposite say, a world shortage has pushed up prices. We have made it clear from the start that it is impossible to exercise a similar control over the prices of fresh and imported foods which are subject to fluctuation from seasonal or external causes without allocating supplies or putting a heavy additional burden on the taxpayer.
During the winter months the supply problems are greatest and the prices of seasonal foods invariably rise. In taking a figure and extrapolating it, the right hon. Gentleman has reached a misleading conclusion. Food prices always rise during winter but the rise last winter was little more than the rise in the corresponding period in the last two years of the Labour Government. During those winter months the increase was over 11 per cent. a year.

Mr. Eric Deakins: There was not a freeze then.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) says that there was not a freeze during the period of the Labour Government. I can only say that his memory is not very clear.
This year the situation has been made doubly difficult by the adverse trend of world markets. Not only has there been a failure of world grain harvests, particularly in Russia and China, but there has also been drought in Australia and New Zealand and there have been shortages of fish in the North Atlantic and near Peru. This is quite apart from the problems of Iceland. There has also been a


rising world demand for beef which no one can deny. All of this has meant large increases in the price of cereals, meat and fish throughout the world.
This has not only affected the United Kingdom. These price rises have been reflected not only in Europe but in the United States. They have had nothing whatever to do with Britain's entry into Europe. Some commodities, particularly meat, are now well above the price level which would result from the full adoption of the common agricultural policy. This in turn means that the percentage price proposals put forward by the Commission would not have a similar proportional effect on retail food prices.
Following President Nixon's announcement last Thursday that he was imposing a ceiling on the price of meat, there were suggestions by hon. Members opposite that we should follow suit. There are, however, major differences between our situation and that of the United States, which I am sure that they do not take fully into account. Imports play a much more important part in the United Kingdom meat supply situation than they do in the United States. In the United States they amount to only 5 per cent. for beef and 11 per cent. for lamb. In the United Kingdom we import 20 per cent. of our beef as well as store cattle from the Irish Republic. In addition we import 60 per cent. of our lamb supplies.
We therefore cannot divorce ourselves from world conditions. This is a fact which hon. Gentlemen opposite either will not or cannot recognise. This is why it would be wholly inappropriate for us to follow that policy. A freeze on meat prices would not be appropriate in this situation. It is true that both fat cattle and retail beef prices have been falling recently. If the Government had imposed a ceiling in January, as was proposed, I am certain that housewives would not have got the benefit—which they have been getting in the past few weeks—from the somewhat lower meat prices. There is this factor which has been seen to operate in the past, namely that if one imposes a ceiling on prices it automatically becomes the floor price, too. That would not have been helpful here.
The Government recognise the seriousness of the situation. Wherever we can we have taken effective action. The 

abolition of SET and purchase tax— [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh. Hon. Members opposite who began some of these taxes may think it funny when we take them off. I do not think that the housewife shares that view. There is also the zero-rating of food. These measures are expected to take 1½ per cent. off the food index. This is a £120 million project in that respect alone. This gives some indication of the size of the problem. If we adopted the policy put forward by the Opposition from time to time, namely that of subsidising food prices, there would be a very high figure involved. This one section, which has removed £120 million from the housewives' costs has taken 1½ per cent. off the food index.
We have acted in other areas. Our food prices unit has been working during the standstill and has secured over 1,000 reductions in prices following consumer complaints. We have banned exports of potatoes and freed imports. We have sustained the tariff on beef and food imports. We have frozen any price increase on breakfast cereal in the light of the Monopolies Commission Report. All these things have a cumulative effect. The right hon. Gentleman refers specifically to what was said by the President of the Food Manufacturers' Association yesterday, recorded in today's Press. The House might be interested in what I understand Mr. Beresford said today when commenting on what he said yesterday:
I spoke not only of some price increases which have yet to go through the pipeline but of decreases which have recently been made. I have seen quoted 400 to 500 decreases as-a result of Government action in removing VAT from certain food products.

Mr. Thomas Torney: Such as ice-cream.

Mr. Godber: Why not ice-cream? There are many mothers who are very glad there has been a reduction in the cost of ice-cream.
He ended in this way:
To summarise, what I and the Minister have been saying is that the period up to the autumn—namely, Phase 2—will have its difficulties in food prices, but as far as the future— that is, the end of this year and onward—is concerned, it is relevant to note that the rate of inflation, as a result of Government policy, is decreasing and there is no reason to believe that it will not be further stabilised in Phase 2 on a broad economic front.


That is what I understand Mr. Beresford has said since lunch today. This puts in balance what has appeared previously, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who seized so avidly on those remarks yesterday will seize just as avidly on what the same gentleman said today.
We do not regard our policy in the Community and our national policy as two separate things. In all our policies we are aiming to control the rate of inflation, but in all spheres we must act in the way most likely to achieve our goals in the best interests of all concerned. We have a total commitment to this policy, but equally we have a total commitment to the European Community and we propose to work fully through its institutions in a spirit of co-operation, with a recognition of the way it has developed and with the aim of promoting the well-being of its citizens.

Mr. Neil Marten: I have listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend's speech. Can he say, therefore, why he cannot accept the Opposition motion? It seems odd.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry that my hon. Friend feels it odd. I have explained precisely the position in regard to it and in regard to a matter which is still subject to discussion in Brussels, and I am not prepared to go further in this regard. I have explained the position precisely, and I think the House fully understands that position.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I noticed that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made by Mr. Beresford today he did not attempt to contradict the figures that were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) as to the price increases that were forecast by Mr. Beresford yesterday. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether he accepts the forecasts of the increases in the prices of butter, sugar, dried egg, meat and fish to which my right hon. Friend referred. If he does not contradict them, it can only be assumed that the Minister accepts that these increases in price will take place.
It is a ludicrous situation for a Minister of this Government to come to the

House and repeat the argument that there will be ½p in the pound increase in the cost of living as the result of our entry into the Common Market. What has been happening in the past six months? Prices have gone up. I am convinced that it has been the deliberate policy of this Government to ensure that prices have been allowed to rise to soften the impact of our entry into the Common Market before we really get into it. I cannot see from the statement made this afternoon by the Minister how we could possibly begin to imagine that there would be a reduction in the cost of living in consequence of our going into the Common Market, a lessening of the increase in the cost of foodstuffs, because he made it clear that this Government accept in toto the common agricultural policy of the Common Market.
It is no good the Minister or any other right hon. or hon. Member of this House talking about how the cost of living has been stabilised. I wonder where they shop. All I know is that in my constituency, which is a fair cross-section of the community, wherever I go I find the housewife in particular complaining constantly of the ever-escalating prices of food. I go shopping with my wife and I know that the cost of foodstuffs goes up weekly. It is no good talking about the decrease in the price of ice-cream and chocolate. It would have been far better to give the £103 million which that cost to sections of the community which do not get the chance of eating ice-cream and chocolate. If one tries to say to old-age pensioners and lower-paid workers—for instance, the people in industrial dispute at the moment, the ancillary workers in the hospital service—that they benefit in consequence of the cheapening of ice-cream and chocolate, the whole thing seems absolutely ridiculous to them with their take-home pay of £15 a week.
Apart from the increase in food prices, taking the increases that have taken place so far and coupling them with the increase in the cost of housing, which represents 50 per cent. of the total income of the lower-paid workers of this country, how can the Government think it offers any hope at all by saying that they accept in toto the common agricultural policy of the Common Market? Everyone knows that it is the craziest 


decision ever taken by a British Government, recognising that we are a major importer of food, to sacrifice all our traditional suppliers, the people in the Commonwealth, and our system of subsidy to our farming community, the two factors by virtue of which we were able to ensure that our people could get cheap food, to an agricultural policy which means in effect the supplying to Britain of dear food. It is crazy in the extreme. It is almost impossible to imagine that any Government could sacrifice our whole cheap food policy, which has stood us in good stead since the end of the last war in particular, in favour of a dear food policy, by accepting the common agricultural policy.
All I want to say in conclusion is that it is no good this Government or any Government imagining that they can impose on shopworkers who are low paid, ancillary hospital workers who are low paid, agricultural workers who are low paid, and all the other low-paid workers of this country a freeze in the first instance, a miserable increase in the second instance and no hope in the third instance, and at the same time pursue a policy as a partner within the EEC which means imposing on those people additional burdens because of the increase in the cost of living.
We have argued that the Government should subsidise basic foodstuffs, although that might be a contravention of the CAP. But the Government have refused to do that. At the same time as the Government say that it is impossible to subsidise basic foodstuffs for the British people, they are prepared substantially to subsidise the 400,000 tons of butter that is being sold to Russia at a reduced price. The Government's policy seems to be that the British people cannot have food subsidies for themselves but will have to bear the cost of food subsidies for the people of Russia.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean—

Mr. Loughlin: Not the Forest of Dean; get the facts right.

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me?

Mr. Loughlin: Gloucestershire, West.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)

asked what had been happening in the last six months. He said that prices had been rising and claimed that they had done so as a result of a deliberate policy of the Government. Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman said is demon-strably rubbish. My right hon. Friend told the House what the Government had been doing to control prices in recent months, and I shall refer to this later in my speech.
My right hon. Friend was right to remind the House that in joining the Common Market we had accepted the common agricultural policy in principle, just as the previous Labour Government did when they entered into negotiations for joining the Common Market. In consequence, my right hon. Friend was right to state that it is our policy not to undermine the CAP but rather to evolve it. I believe that a great deal of evolution is necessary.
The troubles of the CAP stem from two sources. First, it has too many objectives, and, secondly, it was designed for a Community of Six and not for a Community of Nine. So far as its objectives are concerned it may be called a common agricultural policy, but in reality it is a policy aimed at the production of food, a regional development policy and a policy for social purposes. It is that last aspect that makes the CAP so expensive, that is the cause of calls within Europe for a far higher price level and that produces surpluses of some commodities and shortages of others.
It is this social purpose aspect that ensures that prices must be set at a level which will provide a reasonable standard of living for the most inefficient and the smallest farmers in Europe. This means that a high proportion of the CAP expenditure goes in what amounts to direct or indirect guarantee payments, and that the marrying of the supply of individual commodities with demand is decidedly haphazard. This means in turn that inadequate money is available for a successful regional agricultural development policy to improve the structure of European agriculture, whilst ensuring that a much greater proportion of the money available for agriculture is spent on the encouragement of the production of commodities in short supply—for example, mutton and lamb.
The Commission has recently published a long report on sheep production which stated that the 1970 deficit in the Six was 56,000 tons and that that would rise in 1980 in the Nine to 140,000 tons and by 1985 to 160,000 tons. What has happened in the Six is that since 1962 production has remained fairly stable whereas consumption has increased considerably. That one example emphasises the need to make the CAP a more precise instrument for ensuring that supply and demand are kept level.
It is necessary for a greater proportion of the money available for agriculture to be spent, secondly, to the benefit of farmers who are already operating on holdings that are economically viable or could be made economically viable with a greater capital injection. In my right hon. Friend's efforts to stabilise European prices, I hope that he will press the Commission to speed up the development of regional and social policies which are complementary to the evolution of the CAP.
I come back to my second point, that the CAP is designed for the Six and not for the Nine. That being so, now that there are three new members there is no time like the present to get on with a major reappraisal of the CAP both in the light of what I have just said and because it seems likely that the trend will be for efficient farmers to develop their production according to the demands of the Common Market countries as a whole and not just according to their national needs. This will tend to lead to a more regionalised production pattern, and it is important that the consequences and effects of this regionalisation of production should be studied.
Therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend returns to Brussels he will bear in mind in his negotiations the last sentence of the first leader in The Times of last Saturday:
The answer to current problems lies not in unworkable policies to 'freeze' prices, but in radical revisions of the processes by which unrealistic support prices are established, contrary to the interests of the consumer and the Government's fight against inflation.
In considering the all-important and daily topic of food prices at home it is important to look at the realities. No one wants or likes food price increases, but

Lord Walston—who I think, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the previous Labour Government—reminded us in a letter to The Times on Friday of last week that the cost of farm inputs increased by £162 million in the past 12 months. Secondly, he stated: "The farm gate price of food accounts for less than half the price the housewife pays."
Therefore, in relation to farm inputs and to consumer prices, the Opposition's words today might carry a little more weight if they gave the Government more help with their anti-inflation policies instead of supporting such incredible events as the proposed May Day strike.
The Government have already made it crystal-clear they wish to hold prices down. By their actions the Opposition are doing all they can to frustrate the Government's intentions.
What is true of the Government is to some extent true of the EEC in relation to food prices within the limitations of the CAP. The EEC has shown reluctance to increase food prices, and there has, therefore, been a considerable record of increased productivity within Europe and of cost absorption. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend has already reminded the House, the EEC cannot take the blame for present United Kingdom food prices because the bulk of the current increase in prices occurred before we joined Europe and was due largely to the world price situation coupled with inflation.
No one will deny that food price increases cause problems, but, equally, no one can deny that the Government are doing their best to alleviate those problems for those who are hardest hit. Reference has already been made to the removal of the remaining food items from VAT. I believe no reference has yet been made to the introduction of the Family Income Supplement, which did not exist under the last Labour Government. Come next October, pensions will have increased by 55 per cent. since June 1970. In addition, earnings and pensions have already increased ahead of food prices and retail prices in general. Furthermore, if the pessimistic forecasts made yesterday by Mr. Beresford, which I was glad he partially contradicted today —that was repeated by my right hon.


Friend—shouldy prove partially correct, we are now at the end of the standstill period, and, therefore, there will be an opportunity for wages increases which will help housewives to cope.
Finally, the action of the Government in stimulating home agricultural production, an action of which the home farmers have made good use, has helped to produce a better supply of home-grown food. This is demonstrated by the marked improvement in the index of agricultural production between 1969–70 and 1972–73, when it went up from 105 to 117. May this trend continue.
I believe that if the Government wish to stabilise food prices, as I know they do, they should continue to aim towards three objectives: firstly, the expansion of home agricultural production; secondly, containing inflation, as they are beginning to do; and thirdly, working for the revision of the common agricultural policy. Because the Government are pursuing those three objectives, they should receive the full support of the House in the Lobby tonight.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I wish to talk for a few moments about the orange which I am holding in my hand, a very common product available on all our stalls and in our supermarkets today, packed full of very necessary vitamin C which in itself is a defence against the common cold and many other ills, particularly for the children. As I have said, it is common and very reasonably priced today, but because of entry into the Common Market it will become far less common on the fruit dishes of the nation and will cost a great deal more. In the short time at my disposal, I propose to tell the House why.
Almost all the oranges we eat in this country and, indeed, almost all the oranges eaten in all the Common Market countries are imported from outside the Common Market. Four out of every ten oranges sold in Britain come from Israel. The remainder come from Spain, South Africa, Cyprus and Morocco. Less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of the oranges imported in 1971 came from Italy. This is the crux of the argument I will advance to show that our plentiful and cheap supply of oranges, particularly in the

winter months, will be stopped because of entry into the Common Market.
The Common Market is operating a protection racket for the Mafia-controlled orange industry of Italy. The House should know that the only place where oranges are produced within the Common Market is Sicily—in Palermo, Catania and Syracuse. The industry in Italy is inefficient and backward. Indeed the water so vitally needed to make the oranges grow is sold to the small farmers by the Mafia who, as everyone surely knows, are very much in control in that country.
The prices of the vast majority of imports are governed by the prices of a tiny majority of imports from Italy. Before entry, only 3 per cent. of the oranges in the Common Market countries other than Britain came from Italy. Hon. Members can surely understand the situation that will prevail if the Government do not take some action to stop this racket.
I hope the Minister has had an opportunity to read the Sunday Times from which I propose to make one or two quotations. If the Minister has not seen that paper, no doubt he can hasten to read it. The Sunday Times said of this racket:
But the discovery is unlikely to lead to any outraged cries in Whitehall. Among the partners in the Common Agricultural Policy are a series of elaborate alliances, and Britain's closest allies are the Italians.
It is not a collaboration the Government will want to upset by appearing churlish about the unusual relationship between the Mafia and Britain's consumption of vitamin C. The story is not without value, however, for it shows how the system that now controls the prices of food in Britain really works, and it illustrates just how ludicrous the more obscure reaches of the Common Agricultural Policy can be.
I quote further from the same newspaper which I hope the Minister will read and about which I hope he will give some explanation when replying:
…the EEC's policy has its origins in the vital negotiations of 1964 when the French especially were carving up the Common Agricultural Policy to their own advantage. The way it was done offered few advantages to the Italians, so when they asked for particularly rigorous protection for Sicilian oranges the five readily agreed. The result was a unique combination of protective barriers which is remarkable even by the standards of the Common Agricultural Policy.
I hope that what the Minister said about the Government's total commitment to the CAP—and in fact to all the EEC


policies—will not commit us completely to this Mafia-backed Italian orange industry, because that will mean that the prices of oranges which we must import and sell here will rise. It will mean that far fewer oranges will be available, and possibly it will also mean that the present suppliers of our oranges will find new markets for their products. Therefore, quite apart from the fact that oranges will be more expensive for the consumer to buy, it is likely that oranges will be in much shorter supply.
The story which appears in the Sunday Times on this subject is a story of exploitation. The Mafia's exploitation of Sicilian farmers has led to the exploitation of Common Market countries. And the British people will now be exploited, unless the Government are prepared to take some resolute action to ensure that this commodity will still appear on the fruit dishes of the nation in good and plentiful supply and at a price which people can afford to pay.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) will forgive me if I do not take up his line or argument on the Mafia, because it is a subject about which I know very little. It makes me wonder, though, whether the Sicilian Mafia have a godfather in Brussels.

Mr. Torney: They have certainly got one in Bradford.

Mr. Marten: I do not want to speak for long and I wish to take up two points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in his speech today. He said one thing which disturbed me. He said that it was essential to this country to belong to the Common Market. If we look back at the debates which led up to our entry into the Community, we see that we were told that we were joining the Common Market because it was essential that we should reach a wider market, that this would increase our growth rate and raise our standard of living. It was emphasised during those debates that it was necessary to join the EEC otherwise we should fall far behind the standards in the Common Market.
What has happened now that we are able to look at the facts? Last year,

before we entered the Common Market, our growth rate was running at 5 per cent.—higher than that in most of the Common Market countries. That was when we were on our own. We pulled ourselves up by our boot straps, and that is what we should have continued to do. We were told that our standard of living had fallen grossly behind that of the Common Market countries. But quite recently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that in 1972—again before we got into the Common Market— Britain's standard of living rose by 8 per cent.
Therefore, the two main economic reasons for Britain's going into the Common Market have disappeared— indeed, they never existed. We have known this for a long time, but the Government would not accept it when we pursued the point during the Common Market debates.
I was also disappointed by the Minister's mild attitude towards reforming the common agricultural policy. Looking back at what has been said over the past two or three years, the impression we were given during many debates and discussions—I am not saying that this was said by the present Minister of Agriculture because he was not then in that office—was that the Government would take a much tougher line and would seek to reorganise, and even to scrap the CAP. We were assured that if we voted to go in, then after we got into the Community CAP would not last very much longer. That was my firm impression—and I say that subject to correction because I cannot produce the quotations as I have not come into the Chamber with them.

Mr. Shore: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. During the recent exchanges in 28th March, I asked the Minister about changing the CAP from within and he replied:
If we had not gone inside the EEC we would have had no opportunity to influence the price structure within the EEC."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1309.]
Clearly, the Minister was giving the impression that one of the great advantages of our being inside the Community was that we would be able to change the CAP.

Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that I then intervened


and said that if we had not gone in we would have had no need to change it anyhow. I am grateful for that intervention.
Returning to the debate, I must say to my right hon. Friend that the Government's amendment on which we shall have to vote a little late avoids the whole issue with which this debate is concerned. I find the Opposition motion—and this is a rare thing for me—totally acceptable, and I am surprised, indeed deeply distressed, that the Government cannot accept it as it stands.
On 15th February the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture,
Is not the Minister aware that until the Government take measures to control food prices their efforts to control inflation will come to naught?
Whether one agrees with that point or not, the Minister's reply was,
I recognise that there is a substantial and serious rise"—
that is, in food prices—
and I have never sought to deny that. But these rises, as the hon. Gentleman knows, arc due to conditions outside the control of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1419.]
I accept that a large part of the rise is due to conditions outside the Government's control; but in these EEC discussions—and that is what this debate is all about—the Government have a wonderful opportunity within the Common Market to exercise control of prices of food from overseas. If they fail to do so, they must recognise that their credibility to use that argument again will have totally disappeared. I hope that they will take that as a warning.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture when making his statement on 28th March said:
In putting the British point of view, I stressed the importance of avoiding anything that could lead to higher food prices for consumers …".
But surely that is virtually what the Opposition motion says. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government did not gracefully accept it. We know that prices will rise if the Common Market gets its way.
My right hon. Friend also said in that statement:

Although the immediate effect of these proposals on United Kingdom consumer prices will be very limited, the longer-term effect on our prices could be more serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1307.]
My right hon. Friend reaffirmed that statement this afternoon.
We know that prices will rise—for we have already experienced price rises in both sugar and bacon due exclusively to the Common Market. We also know that butter will increase in price from £377 a ton to £837 a ton simply because of the Common Market. If only we were Russians, we would get it at half the price. I only wish that the Government would make a bid for us to be treated just like the Russians.
We have just heard about the oranges. That was new to me. I took the Sunday Times but did not have an opportunity to read that article. Then there are the absurdities of the Intervention Board. If there is in this country or on the market a glut of cauliflowers, the price of cauliflowers drops. This would be pleasant for our housewives. But then the Intervention Board does its job by going on to the market and buying, say, 20,000 tons of cauliflowers in order to force the prices up again for the housewife. The board then says that the cauliflowers can be given away to hospitals. But hospitals, in the meantime, will have bought a lot of cauliflowers when prices were low and will not want those cauliflowers which have been bought up by the board. So the cauliflowers are then sprayed with purple oil, or whatever it may be, and dumped to rot away. Thus the housewife will have to pay more for cauliflowers. This is the idiocy of accepting the common agricultural policy on going into the Common Market.
My Early Day Motion No. 265, which was put down several days before this debate had even been thought of, was intended to support the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that those who joined me in signing the motion will consider it right to abstain from voting in the Division tonight. The Government amendment does not deal with the issue which we are discussing.
If we can reduce the Government majority tonight, perhaps even to single figures, it will be a great help, because the Minister of Agriculture, when he goes


to Brussels, will be able to say that he cannot agree to any increases in prices because his majority here has been so small. He can also say that, if he has to go back with an increase, his majority might be even smaller, and he might have to resign.
We should support the Minister prior to his next visit to Brussels. This is precisely what this sovereign Parliament of ours should do. We have already taken action in this way on heavy lorries and we should do it again and again and so assert the sovereignty of this Parliament. Ministers should be given instructions on how far we wish them to go on certain matters in the Common Market. If they want to go further they should come back and beg for our permission, and we can agree or not depending on the circumstances.
This amendment by the Government virtually side-tracks the issue. It shows that the Government do not wish Parliament to exercise control or, alternatively, that the Government are prepared to compromise on the negotiations on food prices. It is either one or the other—or, perhaps, both. The Minister of Agriculture cannot compromise on food prices, after what he has already said, without compromising himself. That is the personal difficulty in which he finds himself. It comes back to the question of sovereignty. The Opposition motion asserts the sovereignty which we ought to assert, while the Government amendment avoids asserting that sovereignty. This is the issue in which I am most interested.
I will not repeat the quotation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, about how we could treat something as a matter of national interest and use the veto. This is clearly one occasion when we could, should and must use the veto. If Common Market food prices are allowed to rise and the veto is not used by Britain, there can be only one conclusion, and it is a harsh conclusion. The conclusion will be that the Government have put their Common Market policy not only above the need of their counter-inflation policy but also above the needs and interests of the British people. I sincerely hope that we have

not reached that tragic stage. Unless I can get a satisfactory assurance by the end of the debate, I cannot support the amendment for, in my view, it avoids the fundamental issue at stake—the national well-being of the citizens of this country.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Femyhough: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) intervened when the Minister was speaking and he has subsequently made more penetrating observations. I want to point out to him that he will not get the answers he is seeking. He has demonstrated quite clearly that the Government, in their pledge to fight inflation, speak to the workers of this country with one voice but, in discussions in the Common Market, speak with another voice. When the European Communities Bill was going through this House, we were told that the Government would have the right of veto and that, whenever they thought the interests of this country were in peril, they would not hesitate to use that veto.
However, it seems that they have not used it in the EEC discussions as often as another veto has been used by the Minister responsible for intervening in wage negotiations with the workers in this country. It seems fantastic that a Government should say, as this Government said last November, that if 100,000 workers get an increase of £1 a week the effect on this country will be disastrous and thus the Government will use a veto, yet, at the same time, one Minister after another returns from Brussels, having taken part in discussions and arrived at decisions which inevitably raise the cost of living in this country.
Let us look at the position we have got into as a result of our membership of the Common Market. We heard the gramophone record again from the Minister this afternoon about how the price of meat was due to world shortages. We were told that there was a drought in one place and floods in another. There is always the explanation that world conditions have put the price up. Does that apply to butter? Are world conditions to blame for putting up the price of butter in this country?
Everyone knows what the French did last year. They paid £100 per head above the normal price for the French farmers


to destroy their cattle. This was because there was a surplus of 400,000 tons of butter. The only answer to that problem was to turn the butter into cattle food to feed to the cows so that they would then again produce more milk which would then be turned into butter to be turned again into cattle food. That was the stupid situation which obtained in France last year.
We have these 400,000 tons of butter, but the price is going up. Can anyone explain to me how, if the Government have a concrete argument in relation to the meat situation, the reverse does not apply in relation to butter? The Government say that, beause there is a shortage of meat, the price inevitably goes up. But there is a terrific surplus of butter and prices are still going up. The Minister tried to be clever this afternoon when I intervened. I asked whether what he said would mean that the price of butter would come down by 2p or go up by 2p less than it would have done. The Minister had to admit that it only meant that the price would go up 2p less than it would otherwise have done. By how many pence will it rise? We know that the price in the EEC is more than double our price. If we are to have harmonisation, some day we shall have to reach that price and the British people will have to pay it.
On the basis of the rough figure of £400 a ton difference between the CAP price and our price, will the Minister say how long it will be before the British housewife is paying what is being paid in the Continental EEC countries? The right hon. Gentleman knows the price of their butter, and he knows the price of their meat. I hope that he will tell me how long it will be before our people, unless he and his colleagues use the veto as they said they would, are paying the same prices as consumers and housewives in the rest of the EEC.
There is no purpose in having this power of veto unless one uses it. I want the Minister of Agriculture to use his powers of veto in relation to the common agricultural policy with the same courage and determination as the Secretary of State for Employment used his power against the low-paid workers when he stopped them getting even Wages Council rates. I want the Minister of

Agriculture to exercise the same courage and determination.
It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to ask workers to exercise restraint when at the same time they are deliberately subscribing to policies which not only defeat their counter-inflationary measures but add to the burdens and the problems of the workers whom they are asking to exercise restraint.
These increases will not be necessary if the Minister is prepared to use his powers. But if he wants to be a very-much-loved man on the Continent and acknowledged there as a statesman but detested by ordinary workers here, that is what will happen.
As the hon. Member for Banbury said, we were sold a lot of pups when the legislation was going through the House. I can remember how we were told that EEC capital would rush to Britain. One would have thought that the capitalists of Europe were lining up to break into Britain but that there was a wall between us which only the EEC and our membership could smash. The wall is not there now. Far from them rushing to invest here, the contrary has occurred. Our people have rushed to invest there.
I asked for the figures on this matter last week. The EEC has invested £100 million in Britain—excluding oil. From a population of 200 million has come £100 million. But the investors of Britain, a country with a population of just over 50 million, have invested £300 million in the EEC. In other words, we are sending our money to them for investment purposes three times faster than they are sending theirs here. This is in complete contradiction to what we were led to believe. It is an entirely different story.
When shall we see those beautiful pictures which were painted when the legislation was going through Parliament? When will they become reality? When shall we get this investment? When shall we start to make inroads concerning our exports as distinct from the inroads which the EEC is making into our markets?
I have heard the Minister of Agriculture on many occasions, but I do not remember an occasion when he has seemed more uncomfortable and less enthusiastic than this afternoon. He knows


full well that his heart is not in the case that he was making. Things are not working out as the Government expected. Unless the Minister is prepared to assert the authority of this House by saying that, at a time when we are imposing on our people hardships that they dislike to counter inflation, he will not endorse any policy which aggravates the position of our people, he is asking for and will deserve all the trouble that he will get from both the British housewife and workers in general.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: There is a tendency on the part of those who opposed our entry into Europe, on both sides of the House, to blame the present rise in food prices on Europe. I dare say that this is natural on their part because they want to tell those of us who voted for British entry into Europe "We told you so." But if they raise their eyes above the horizon of Britain and of the EEC, they will see that there is a food price crisis in many other parts of the world which have nothing to do with the EEC.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend has made an aspersion against me, as I am the only anti-Marketeer, a person who opposed Britain's entry, on the Government side of the House to have spoken in this debate. I have never said what he suggested I had said. I admitted and agreed with the Minister that the rise in prices was very largely international. I went on to say that now the Minister has to use his influence to stop any further rises in prices in the Common Market area of food prices. That is very different from what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Roberts: I accept my hon. Friend's statement. I am sure that I have learned that generalisations do not always cover everyone.
I was about to refer to the general furore in the United States at present, where food prices rose by no less than 2·4 per cent. in February alone. That figure is comparable with our February increase of 1·8 per cent. The American 2·4 per cent. increase accounted for two-thirds of the month's rise of 8 per cent. in the consumer price index, the highest monthly rise for 22 years. Perhaps there is a warning for us here. The increase

in the United States has obviously come at the end of their phase 2 period, when there was possibly too much relaxation of the reins. There may be a warning for us as we approach phase 3.
The causes of the food price rises in the United States appear to be much the same as those operative here. The American Cost of Living Council Committee on Food, which is chaired by the American Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. George Shultz, published its White Paper on 20th March. It put as the first cause the increase in consumer demand as a result of advancing consumer purchasing power. The same cause is bound to operate in Britain. As wages rise, as unemployment falls and as pensions and benefits are increased, part of the general upsurge in demand must direct itself towards food purchasing. That primary reason, which was given in the United States for their food price increases, must also apply to this country.
The second cause of food price increases given by the Americans was the increased demand of other industrial countries, such as ourselves, which led in turn to expanded American exports of foodstuffs which went up by nearly 40 per cent. in value from the previous fiscal year to 1972. Much of this increase in exports was undoubtedly attributable to the grain needs of Eastern Europe, Russia, India, China, Australia and Argentina as a result of their poor harvests last year. That meant that the world crop of cereals fell by no less than 4 per cent. compared with 1971. We cannot imagine, if the world crop of cereals falls by 4 per cent., that that will not have an effect upon grain prices in this country. Grain prices the world over doubled within six months. It is as well to remember that we imported just over 11 per cent. in value of our foodstuffs from North America last year. If we import from an area of rising prices, it is clear that we import the rising prices as well.
The third reason given for the food price rise in America is last year's general decline in domestic food production. As a result, the Americans suspended meat import quotas in June last year and their meat imports increased by 15 per cent. This year their meat imports are already up 20 per cent. on the similar period last year. We know what effect this has had


on the Australian meat market, because the Americans are now their biggest importers and take in about 250,000 tons of Australian meat per annum.
I understand that the Americans are also considering raising their cheese quotas. They have already raised their quota of non-fat dried milk. All this is bound to have an effect on world prices and on the prices of foodstuffs that we import.
The American answer to the problem is expansion of food supplies. It is expected, as a result of their measures, that farm prices will fall and be no higher at the end of 1973 than they were at the beginning. The consumer, because of the lag, is expected to benefit early in 1974.
My major point is that our answer, too, must be to expand production as much as possible. I believe that the Government are doing this inside the United Kingdom.
We have been importing about 30 per cent. in value of our food from Western Europe compared with about 46 per cent. from the sterling area. Between December 1971 and December 1972 food prices in EEC countries rose rather higher than here: France 8·7 per cent., Germany 8 per cent., and Italy 8·4 per cent., compared with our 7·9 per cent. Admittedly, the figure for the United Kingdom, for lack of a better, is between November 1971 and November 1972, whereas the other figures are between December 1971 and December 1972. Food prices in Canada rose by 7·7 per cent.—only ·2 per cent. below our figure.
We have heard and read about pressure in the EEC for further increases in prices. This has not been agreed. I understand that my right hon. Friend has been arguing for some form of subsidy for farmers on similar lines to our deficiency payments system. But in Europe, as elsewhere, the answer must lie in expanded production without greatly increasing surpluses. We must expect that as real wages increase the demand for food will increase as well as the demand for other products.
We must also be prepared to spend a greater proportion of our household income on food. It appears that the percentage of household income spent on food between 1968 and 1971 has fallen from 26·4 per cent. to 25·9 per cent. I do not know whether this is a continuing

trend. However, I believe that we should expect to spend more on food.
Finally, when we give increases in wages we do not necessarily give more money to the housewife. Yet the pressure is really falling upon her. We would be well advised to be aware that money given in wage increases does not necessarily find its way into the housewife's purse, and she is the one who is under pressure.
I appreciate the position of and statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
The motion urges Her Majesty's Government
not to accept any further general increase in EEC prices.
This is not a constitutional matter; it is a matter of negotiation. If the motion urged the Government to resist, I might be able to support it; but "not to accept", I cannot accept.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Con-way (Mr. Wyn Roberts) is in for a considerable disappointment if he expects the problem of agricultural surpluses in Europe to be dealt with by a greater elasticity of demand for food than there has been in the past. The problem goes a great deal deeper than that.
I should like to express my satisfaction that the Opposition have initiated this important debate prior to the meeting which is to take place in Luxembourg on 9th and 10th of this month. I express mild surprise only that the Government left this initiative to my right hon. Friends. I think that there would have been some advantage to the Government in having their negotiating position strengthened by a resolution of this House on a matter on which frankly there is a surprising degree of unanimity about not only objectives but methods.
The Minister's speech revealed a number of extremely disquieting aspects of the Government's approach to these negotiations. First, the Minister reasserted with great strength what he has said before, that the Government accepted the common agricultural policy. That will come as no surprise to anyone in the House. But what must have come as a surprise, even to those of us who recognised that there was an inevitability about


accepting the CAP in principle, was the extremely static view of the policy to which the Minister gave support. It is remarkable how the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem of prices and the development of the CAP appears to be that of a man sitting on a kettle of steam. His approach appears to be that the only way to deal with the situation is to try by whatever means he can put forward—of hectoring or persuading —to prevent prices rising. By taking this wholly negative approach to the CAP the right hon. Gentleman almost seeing to be unaware of the underlying reasons for the resistance to the policy of Her Majesty's Government of the other members of the Community with whom he has to negotiate.
The problem is not one solely of prices. It is one of farm incomes in the Community. It was strange that the Minister gave so little attention to it. In many ways the Community has been considerably more flexible in its approach to the problem than the Minister. He said in one passage of his speech to which I listened with some care that he thought it would be wrong to seek to rely upon an incomes supplement for farmers as an alternative to a continual boosting of farm gate prices because it would have some effect in undermining the structural changes which are required in the Community.
If that is the right hon. Gentleman's approach, one must be profoundly pessimistic about the prospects for changing the CAP not only to our advantage but to that of the Community itself. I suggest that the Minister's emphasis in this is considerably more conservative than that of the Commission which, in its proposals put forward for the Ministers to discuss last week, referred specifically to this as a means of moderating the problem of increased prices.
I refer to paragraph 15 of the Commission's document which says:
The Commission is still convinced that the problem of low incomes in agriculture must be resolved principally by effective measures of structural policy and by specific measures for supporting incomes in the most underprivileged areas.
We had not a word of this from the Minister in his announcement to the

House last week or in his speech today. We have had nothing about draft proposals for mountainous and other difficult areas of agriculture which seem to mark a new departure of significance in the thinking of the Commission, not unrelated to the fact that there are new commissioners dealing with these matters and to the fact that the Community itself is now much more flexible on this matter than Her Majesty's Government appear to be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) drew attention, quite rightly in my view, to the chronic tendency of the Community to over-production. Again it is remarkable how little attention the Minister gave to this problem in his speech. It is one which has enormously exercised other members of the Community. However the right hon. Gentleman felt it unnecessary to refer to it save briefly and in passing.
No solution to the problem which depends upon managing prices will be wholly adequate, and it is time that the Minister stopped repeating the speeches made by his right hon. Friends during the passage through this House of the European Communities Bill about the sacrosanct nature of the CAP. It is not sacrosanct. It is not regarded as sacrosanct by other members of the Community.
I support that general proposition by reference to a number of proposals made by the Commission to the Ministers themselves to which again the right hon. Gentleman made very little reference. I have referred already to their proposals on income support and to the draft proposals for the directive on farming and modernisation. But there is also the encouraging recognition that the biggest problem of surpluses for the Community has been the over-production of milk and milk products and the interesting and very welcome suggestion that special beef premia should be paid which, I understand, would not affect the price of beef to the housewife but which would secure the income of the fanner and encourage a switch out of milk into fatstock production. That is an example of the kind of flexibility which the Community is showing but which Her Majesty's Government seem much less ready to demonstrate.
The most remarkable omission of all from the right hon. Gentleman's speech —and it is one which should not go unnoticed in this House—was his failure to refer to the fact that the Commission itself has proposed a fundamental review of the common agricultural policy and that there should be discussion on the Commission's proposals in meetings to take place in October.
Why have not we heard from the Minister about it? Why did he make no reference to it in his announcement to the House last week? Why have not we been given any indication today of the Government's thinking about the techniques for adjusting the CAP in our interests and in those of the Community? It deserves to be put on record that paragraph 24 of the document which the Commission put forward for the Council's consideration last week says:
In drawing up these proposals for the 1973– 74 marketing year, the Commission has noted that the agricultural price policy is being increasingly conditioned through the limits imposed by the requirements of the genera] economic policy. It has also found that the agricultural price policy, though helping to raise agricultural incomes generally, cannot settle all the problems that arise as a result of disparities within the agricultural sector itself. The Commission is therefore making known to the Council its intention to carry out an in-depth examination of the problems to decide whether it is expedient to introduce supplementary measures which would allow a reasonable and appropriate increase in agricultural incomes without causing the market situation to deteriorate.
That is a call for a fundamental review of the CAP. We have not had a single reference to it from the Government.
What does this mean? As I see it, it means that the Government are quite unprepared to contribute their own new thinking on this matter and are simply playing the old gramophone record about the sacrosanct nature of the CAP. The Government have some quick thinking to do if they are to make any significant contribution to the discussions in October which will be so vital to the country at large, especially to the farming community and to the housewife.
I conclude on a more immediate note. Plainly in the discussions next week there can be little major departure from the general outlines of the CAP. But there is one matter on which there must be the firmest possible stand by the Government.

It is on the question of the across-the-board price increase of 2·76 per cent. The Government have indicated that they are strongly opposed to it, and I believe that this House will regard it as wholly unacceptable if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not stand firm on this one. That is a nonsense. It is bringing together what clearly should be disjoined. It cannot solve the Community's problems, or the CAP's difficulties. That is because the monetary problems which the Community now faces are by no means solved, and the continuing float in this country and in Italy will create further strains for the existing agricultural policy.
It is entirely rational, both from the point of view of our domestic interests and from the point of view of the Community's development of its policies, to make known our position. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that he has our support at least on this matter. In the concluding speeches I hope that a Government spokesman will give some indication of their forward thinking. It is a disgrace that we have not yet had such an indication.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: By now there is almost no need to comment on Socialist Common Market hypocrisy. That was most firmly and definitely stated when the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) took his stand. It is remarkble that under the circumstances the Opposition keep coming back in this direction.
Their hypocrisy has now transferred itself to their attitude on prices which are affected by Common Market policy. We all know that the Socialist Government, in their pre-election negotiation for entry into the Common Market, accepted the common agricultural policy. All the criticism which has been made since then in the House by the Opposition, in the light of their pre-election attitude, is directly misleading to the British housewife.
The trouble is that the major sector of the Opposition suffer from anti-Common Market blindness. That blinds them to the true position of the world situation. It is something of a surprise to me to hear the laissez-faire arguments that the Opposition put forward. An attempt is being made to plan production. That is


exactly what Common Mrket policy is all about.

Mr. Deakins: It is unplanned.

Mr. Kinsey: The aim of Common Market policy is to take away the element of chance, as much as man can take away that element, from food production. It is an attempt to achieve an ordered supply.

Mr. Deakins: Mr. Deakins indicated dissent.

Mr. Kinsey: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) may well laugh, but that is the plan. I am rather surprised that Socialists should decry that attempt. It makes a nonsense of their attitude to life. The policy of the Common Market will not and cannot be entirely successful because nature will always take a hand in all circumstances. The other incontrovertible law is that of supply and demand, which takes over with its consequent effect.
I am a city man and I represent city dwellers. Nevertheless I recognise the right of the agricultural producers to get an adequate return both from capital and labour. However, I do not intend to see the farmer feather-bedded. It is in the interests of the consumer that the farming community should get an adequate return otherwise that community will turn away from its productive efforts. That would create a shortage of commodities and would have consequent effect on prices, militating against the consumer, the shopper and the housewife.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) recognised that factor and commented on it. He referred to the butter situation and the great rush away from production which took place. It was not only in the Common Market that that happened. The reduction of herds went worldwide. However, there was no real encouragement, not even from the Labour Government of the day, to increase production. That is one of the factors from which we are now suffering.
The House is in danger if it looks only at the Common Market's effect on prices. The situation applies throughout the world. The Minister has put that point to us, but he need not have done so. We read about the situation in the papers. We know about the position in Russia. We know the position in America, and in Japan, as well as in the Common Market.

Diverse economies have been affected. Financially successful countries and those experiencing financial difficulties have been affected.
The circumstances that apply in the United States are similar to those applying in the Community. They have a wages policy and yet the cost of food still rises. That is perhaps contradictory and is not understood by the public, particularly the housewife. When the housewife marches into a shop and stands at the counter she sees immediately in front of her that prices are rising, and she cannot understand it.
An interesting statistic appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, which is circulated in this country, and which is independent. In the issue of 21st March it said,
The American housewife spends less on food than housewives in France and West Germany. Last year consumer food prices rose 87 per cent. in France and 8 per cent. in Germany, against 4·8 per cent. in the United States.
The interesting fact is that in France and West Germany there are rising prices and yet their people are consuming more than American families. Is there not a lesson? I believe that reveals the prosperity of the Community. Does it not mean that prosperous people can better afford rising food costs? Is that not a thought to take forward with us?
What is the effect of such prosperity on the world market? The editorial of the Christian Science Monitor of 31st March talks about the demand for meat. It also mentions that the United States' negotiators, in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, are bidding for better access for American farm products to Common Market countries. The editorial reads,
In 1973 alone the United States expects to sell 3·5 billion dollars more in farm products abroad than it will import.
The common agricultural policy that is being condemned today is something that the world is looking to.
We must consider meat prices throughout the world. The Christian Science Monitor refers to the fact that in Japan one cannot buy any beef or pork for less than 5 American dollars for a 1b. I cannot translate that immediately into English pounds. Consumers in Japan pay 7 dollars to 10 dollars a 1b. for beef.
That shows that world prices are met by nations that can afford them. Of course, those are the prosperous nations, and that has a bearing on world prices.
If we had acted on meat price rises in this country in the same way as America, by trying to impose a ceiling, we should be experiencing the fear felt by American producers that the policy will create a shortage which will mean continuing high prices for the American housewife. For that reason, and for other reasons, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the other day that a world conference on food should be convened to examine the problem. The matter must be examined. I still believe that the need is for an expanding production of food. If we can utilise the agricultural potential of developing nations we shall be doing a useful service to the whole world.
The Government have done their job in keeping down food prices by reducing taxes. That is the only sector in which they can work effectively. We must acknowledge the inflationary effect of taxation. The Government have reduced personal taxes, abolished SET and reduced taxation on purchases. The Socialist taxation of food has been removed. If those pressures had not been taken away by the Government, prices would have been higher.
The Opposition have scoffed at the removal of tax on ice-cream and chocolates, which are an essential element of family food costs. I wish that we could have removed the other Socialist food tax on pet foods—

Mr. Deakins: Who eats pet foods?

Mr. Kinsey: The tax hit pensioners in particular. The old people make an important point of looking after their pets.
I reject the Opposition's motion, because the Common Market has an effect on world food prices, and now we are in a position to influence its decisions. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has taken a stand in Brussels on these important issues.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) has more

confidence in the Minister's intentions than I or my right hon. Friends have.
I want to begin by taking up the hon. Gentleman's point about hypocrisy. If there has been any hypocrisy in the debate, it has come from the Government Front Bench—the hypocrisy of opposing further price rises under the common agricultural policy yet saying almost in the same breath, "We fully accept the common agricultural policy, and rising prices are an element in it". It is almost as if the Minister has been telling us that he is in favour of sin, but on this occasion is against adultery, at least in the first few months of marriage. I do not think that we shall hear the same story next year.
The Government accept all the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy for keeping up prices—levies, intervention buying and export subsidies, which cost a great deal. They must also accept—this is what they are reluctant to admit—that under the present common agricultural policy if agricultural incomes are to keep pace with incomes in the non-agricultural sector they must rise each year. Otherwise, as has been happening since 1962 in the Common Market under the common agricultural policy, the gap between those incomes grows wider and wider.
There is no point in the Minister's telling us that he does not like what is happening, as it was inevitable in acceptance of the common agricultural policy as it is now. Those higher food prices year by year must inevitably mean higher prices for the British housewife.
The Minister has been telling us in particular that he will resist higher food prices, but he will not resist so strongly that he will dare use the veto. The situation reminds me of the passage in an 18th century French court drama where a young courtesan, a lady of easy virtue, is being carried off by a nobleman to his bedroom. As she is carried, screaming and kicking, she cries, "Rape! Rape!", loud enough to satisfy the demands of honour but not so loud as to attract attention from anyone who might help her.

Mr. Marten: In defence of my right hon. Friend, may I say that he has not exactly said that he will not use the veto. He has said that he might or might not.

Mr. Deakins: The Minister cried for help last week and this week, and the Opposition have come to his assistance. Having cried for help merely to satisfy the demands of honour, the Minister is now reluctant to accept the motion, because he knows jolly well that he does not really need our help. He is reluctant to use the veto, and will not do so. I confidently predict that if our motion is rejected the Minister will next week submit to the pressures of his agricultural colleagues and accept higher prices for many commodities if not necessarily across the board.
What can be done to help the housewife if the Government should give in next week? The dread word "subsidies" has been mentioned. Why not? The Government's attitude is that we cannot have subsidies without rationing. That is a load of rubbish. We have bacon and sugar subsidies. Can anyone put his hand on his heart and say that there is rationing of bacon or sugar, except by price, a form of rationing that applies to many other commodities? It is a nonsense to link subsidies and rationing.
Perhaps the Government will claim that those subsidies are not subsidies That raises the question, "When is a subsidy not a subsidy?" Perhaps the answer is, "When it is a distribution payment on sugar or a stabilisation payment on bacon". But, to misquote the Bard, that which we a call a subsidy would be equally welcome to the British housewife if the Government did not choose to call it a subsidy. It does not matter as long as we have some price stabilisation and support for the housewife.
My party accepts the need for consumer subsidies. The Government oppose them because their use would mean a transfer of resources from rich to poor, and that would never do from the present Government. They could have subsidised food since the start of the freeze on 6th November. It would have cost money, but they have saved over £100 million on the agricultural support system in the current year—1972–73. The Government's refusal to subsidise food was a failure of political will, and was not a result of the complexities of the operation. They would have been as nothing compared with the complexities of value added tax.
Several Conservative Members have made a point about world shortages. Is there any world shortage of bacon, sugar, butter, cheese or milk? There are to be increases in the prices of all those commodities in the next 12 months as a direct result of the common agricultural policy of the Common Market. It is nothing to do with world shortages. Butter is certain to go up in May, as are sugar and bacon, and milk will probably go up later this year.
What excuse will the Government offer then? They do not like accepting the responsibility. What will they tell the House and the housewife when the Intervention Board operates to keep up the price of butter and meat? What will they say to the housewife when world cereal prices fall later this year and she cannot receive the benefit? They will have to tell her and the House that in accepting the common agricultural policy they have willingly accepted a dear food policy.
The fact is that the common agricultural policy needs to be scrapped. There is no point in tinkering with it. If the Minister will accept that message from the House tonight, he will go forewarned and forearmed into his battle in Brussels or Luxembourg next week, and will be encouraged to take the first steps in that direction. That is what the debate is all about. Therefore, I hope the House will accept the motion.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I followed the start of the argument of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), when he said that agricultural incomes will have to rise every year within the Community, but I thought that his conclusion was entirely wrong. The only way to increase agricultural incomes is to reduce the number of people in agriculture, and that has already started on the Continent. In 1952, 25 per cent. of the population in the Six— the original members of the Common Market—were in agriculture. Over the past few years great steps have been taken in reducing the number in agriculture and thus increasing the farm income of those who remain in the industry.
In 1972 the proportion of the total population employed in agriculture was 15 per cent. It really ought to be as low as 7 per cent. As the hon. Member for


Walthamstow, West knows, agriculture in the United Kingdom is really prosperous and flourishing at the moment—a situation in which 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom population produces 3 per cent. of our gross national product which comes from agriculture. On the Continent, 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the gross national product attributable to agriculture is produced by 14 per cent. of the population. The hon. Gentleman was not very honest with himself—and he is very knowledgeable on agricultural subjects—when he argued that the only way to increase farm incomes in Europe is to go on increasing farm gate prices. The way to increase farm incomes is to reduce the number of people in agriculture; and that is not happening in Europe. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels he will be telling himself that it is in the interest of everybody in the United Kingdom to try to reduce farm gate prices on the Continent.
I could not follow all the arguments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He said we must look for ways of making continental farmers more efficient, and that he did not think the Government had any new thoughts. He went on to explain the special scheme on the Continent to encourage beef breeds against dairy breeds. Surely, he was there telling my right hon. Friend what my right hon. Friend was saying in this House last week—that the proper way for CAP to go was just with schemes such as the calf-rearing scheme and the calf subsidies that we have in this country and which they have not got in Europe. In this way, with production grants, we can increase farm incomes, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West wants, enabling us at the same time to negotiate sincerely for lower farm gate prices.
On the Continent we are really facing not an agricultural but a social problem. We have solved our agricultural problem in this country. We are able to reduce the taxpayers' liability to the agriculture industry, and the agriculture industry becomes more and more profitable each year. As the House knows, we are the largest food importers in the world, and even if we were outside the European Community we should be paying a great deal more for many of the commodities

we now import, simply because they are in such short supply. So we have the problem of expanding home production, and there are already very encouraging signs of success in this sphere.
The most encouraging sign in our countryside this winter has been the heavy stocking to be seen on all our farms. How the farmers have managed to do it with the price of livestock I do not know. The cereal acreage remains the same, but the amount of livestock to be seen in the fields throughout the winter months seems greater than ever before. I hope this will show up in the half-yearly agricultural returns. There are concrete signs, for anyone to see, of a major increase in agricultural production, particularly in livestock and cereal yield. On prices, the problem is surely the price of fresh meat, especially beef. We know that there is a world shortage of beef and an increased demand from the United States which, for the first time, is importing from Australia. Years ago we used to argue that Japan should take more old ewe mutton from Australia and New Zealand. Japan is now doing that, but the Japanese taste for mutton has increased so much that they are now taking New Zealand lamb, which I do not welcome. The very trends that we have wanted and for which we have argued for years are now going ahead.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West did not live up to his normal knowledge of agriculture when, yesterday, he predicted a good harvest and falling cereal prices. He is a very brave man. I know that everyone is well on with cultivation, but the acreage is not up and we do not know what the climatic conditions will be. Are we really to see falling grain prices in the coming year? I believe the hon. Gentleman is quite unrealistic. I know that the Americans are bringing many acres into production and getting rid of the fertility bank. That will help, but it will take some time before it gets through to the rest of the world.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this year Russia has bought 80 million tons of grain and China has come into the market, buying 6 million tons. These are not signs of falling cereal prices. For the first time in history, all the people of China are adequately fed and they are going to have to continue to buy if they are to keep up their standard of living.


So, again the hon. Gentleman is being unrealistic.
One of the great problems that we have to face over the next few years is very high world cereal prices—a problem which is bound to be reflected, through no fault of the Government, in the price of bread in this country. This debate has had a slightly unrealistic air about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued that CAP is causing higher prices in this country. That simply is not true. Higher prices in this country have been caused by prices in the world, which are far higher than the farm gate prices already agreed under CAP.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Some Government speakers believe it is sufficient answer to the motion to say that a Labour Government would have accepted the common agricultural policy. That may well have been the case; I understand it is arguable. But even if it is accepted it simply proves to me that there are deluded hon. Members on both sides of the House. The abandonment of a cheap food policy on entry into the Common Market was a self-inflicted wound of appalling magnitude, which may eventually prove fatal to this country. Because of the population of the United Kingdom, principally that of England, we have a heavy bill for imports, due to our farming production being insufficient to feed our people. As a result, we have always to look for food imports. With the adoption of CAP this situation has been aggravated.
In the Common Market the bills will be astronomical. Forecasts made confidently from the Government Front Bench during the EEC debates have already been exposed as wishful thinking, if not outright deception. The fact that the fishery resources of this country were sold out in negotiations will aggravate the food position in due course and—an important point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney)—oranges will become a rare and expensive fruit, which will have a deleterious effect on our children.
Hon. Members whom I support have referred to the destruction of food which takes place within the EEC—a practice

which is sinful and will bring retribution. The President of the Food Manufacturers Federation has had a very quick conversion—within 24 hours. It was almost as fast as that which happened to St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Yesterday he was definite that on five main foods there would be price increases of between 10 per cent. and 24 per cent. by the end of the year. I do not think it is possible to read that forecast out of context, no matter what the Minister of Agriculture may have expressed today as that man's present views.
The Minister is in default in not accepting this motion, for he would go to the EEC with a much stiffer spine if he did so. It is unbelievable that the motion should be seen as in any way exceptionable, and I shall support it in the Lobby tonight.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: This debate has been remarkable for two or three things, particularly the absence of the Liberal Party which claims to have campaigned so actively for our entry into Europe and also for the fact that we are dealing with a Government amendment which speaks of giving the highest priority to combating inflation in the European Economic Community. If, as the debate has shown, the Government are really keen on doing this, the obvious thing is for them to accept the motion and resist food price increases within the framework of the CAP.
The vital factor is that the CAP, despite what was said earlier by my hon. Friend about the re-examination of that policy which is supposedly taking place in Europe, is the linch-pin of our entry into Europe and of the Community's policy on agriculture and food prices.
We should consider the question of prices more realistically than we have been prepared to do thus far. It is not just a question of cheap food prices being demanded from Europe; by our entry into the Common Market we turned our backs on the opportunity of world trade and the advantages that we had in terms of the price of foodstuffs. It is not simply an element of bargaining that is at stake in this debate; it is the whole policy of our entry into Europe.
It is no use talking about renegotiating the common agricultural policy when we


deserted the Commonwealth on 28th October 1971. The people who should have been dominating the debate are those who told us, in the heady days prior to our entry, that the solution of our economic, industrial and agricultural problems lay in membership of the Community.
That is the kernel not only of our discussion today but of all the policies that have flowed from that decision to enter. The Government would never have been able to impose on the British people the price increases and the policies that they have imposed in the last three or four months if we had not handed over to them the instrument by which they could do it, namely, entry into the Community.
Therefore, we demand satisfaction from the Minister on two or three key issues. In some ways we cannot really demand it from him, because he is not capable of giving it. The main answer that we want is to the question: how far are we prepared, as a Parliament and a Government, to withdraw from Europe if the demands of the House and the demands of the nation are not met? Some might argue that this is now impossible, but whether the people who voted for entry or not are prepared to accept it, the Labour Party is committed to the renegotiation of our entry into Europe, within not only the limited framework and confines of this debate but the wider issues and aspects of our membership.
The Opposition are demanding from the Government, week after week and month after month in the period that lies ahead, a wide debate on regional policy, industrial policy, fuel and power and steel. This is not a debate solely on agriculture. It is the start of a wide, searching examination of the folly committed by the House in allowing the Government to enter the Community on 28th October 1971.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The excuses we have heard from the Government side for the increases in food prices have tended to show that everybody is responsible for the increases except the Government. The excuses would have made Machiavelli look like a fifth-rate performer and an amateur.

The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) added a new dimension to the debate by concentrating on dividing the nation. His contribution was to try to divide families. He said the real problem was that the working man was not giving his wife a sufficient proportion of his wages. That is a new and remarkable dimension in the excuses which have been put forward.
We were told that a special Minister had been appointed to keep an eye on prices. She was to be the watchdog to ensure that they did not rise. If nothing can be done to control prices, when is she to be given the sack? That would be the logical consequence of the situation.
All this need not have happened if we had not been so silly as to go into the Common Market. If we had shown a little more faith and confidence in those who expressed their faith and confidence in us in trying times—the Australians, New Zealanders and people of the other countries of the Commonwealth—we could still be purchasing cheaper food from them than anything we could get from the Common Market. The situation is probably best outlined in the Government amendment, which says that the Government are:
to give the highest priority to combating inflation"—
not in the interest of Great Britain but
in the European Economic Community's overall interest".
If any Conservative Member believes that Britain's interests should be put first he will come with the Opposition into the Lobby tonight against the Government who are selling the nation down the drain.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Everyone in the House, and certainly millions of people throughout the country, will think it right that we should now have a debate on a matter of such supreme importance as food prices. I would have thought that whatever views people took about the Common Market everyone would agree about that.
I must make an exception, however, in the case of the Liberal Party, which has been most notable for its complete absence from the Chamber on the first occasion that the House has discussed the increase


in food prices resulting from British entry into the Common Market. The country should take note that the Liberal Party is so little interested in rocketing food prices that it cannot even take the trouble to attend the debate. Heaven alone knows how it will vote. I suppose that it will line up with the Government, and that we should attempt to draw as slight a distinction between the Government and the Liberals on this matter as we should attempt to draw between, say, Sutton and Cheam.
I first recall to the House what the Minister of Agriculture said in his famous speech in Brussels. This should have been superfluous but, unfortunately, it has proved necessary because, in the House, the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat his strong words. Hon. Members who had heard him speak only here, this afternoon, might completely misapprehend what he said in Brussels. I should like to put his words there on the record. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I quote him. The headline in the Daily Telegraph of 28th March 1973, following the right hon. Gentleman's protest in Brussels, was:
Food Price Revolt by Britain
Godber leads fight against inflation
Then it went on:
Mr. Godber, Minister of Agriculture, said that a general freeze of EEC farm prices was vitally needed to prove that member states really meant to fight inflation.
A little later it said
'This is a matter of crucial importance to us in Britain,' he declared.
Later still it said:
Mr. Godber said: 'The cost of the present system is already high and all the signs are that it will increase on the basis of present price levels'".
and, later still, that
'some increases in food prices are due to world conditions and will occur whatever decisions we take in the Council'".
True enough.
He went on:
We must not endanger our …battle against inflation by adding to food prices unnecessarily.
Those are very strong words.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his head. I can-

not understand why he does not nod his head to our motion, because it uses several of the words which he used in Brussels. Our motion refers to a 
general increase in EEC prices.
That is a direct quotation from what the right hon. Gentleman said in Brussels. The motion also refers to 
a matter of vital national interest
which are the words that he used in Brussels, although he may not have used the term "vital national interest" in the technical sense that we are employing.
We put down the motion in the hope of assisting the Government. If they had been prepared to let it go through, I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of the argument—including my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who takes a different view from some of us on the general question of the EEC—that the Government could then have gone back to Brussels with the backing of the motion and would therefore have been in a stronger position.
The debate is of some importance, in the sense that it may set a precedent for future debates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has said, we shall have debate after debate initiated by those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to assert the authority of the House of Commons. If the House abandons its authority at this first test—that is the meaning of the Government's amendment—it will be all the more difficult to assert it in future.
One of the things we must extract from the debate is exactly what is the position of the Minister of Agriculture now. No one listening to his speech today could doubt that he had greatly weakened the force of the words which he used in Brussels. We do not know in which character he was appearing. When he was in Brussels he gave the impression that he was Horatius holding the bridge. Today, in the House, he looked more like Sextus selling the pass—Sextus, who wrought the dead of shame.
This is a matter of great importance, because the right hon. Gentleman, on the contrary, could have gone back to Europe reinforced by a decision of the House of Commons against this further


general increase in prices, which he himself deplores, denounces and says is unnecessary, even to the maintenance of this contraption, the common agricultural policy. Instead, he will go back to Europe gravely weakened.
What has brought this about? The Prime Minister may have brought pressure to bear. After all, at the most critical moments in our lengthy debates on this subject he sought to persuade the country that there was no question of great food price increases threatening us if we entered the EEC. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that it was a great question. He did not say that the food price level in the Common Market might threaten the whole of the Government's counter-inflation policy—which is what the Minister of Agriculture said in Brussels. On the contrary, what the Prime Minister said to the Tory Central Council at Central Hall, Westminster, on 14th July—and this is the basis on which we went into the EEC—was:
Joining the European Community will have only a marginal effect on prices. In the first six years of our membership, while we change over to the new system of food prices, the increase in the cost of living as a result of entry will be half a new penny in the £ each year.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman nods his head, let him go to Brussels and quote that passage. But what force will his argument have? They will laugh at him over there. They will say to him, "But if the margin is so narrow as that, why are you so worried? Why are you engaged in revolt by Britain?"
Is the Prime Minister so insistent in this matter because of the undertakings he gave to President Pompidou on the question of the Common Market? We have heard some statements made about the agreements or understandings of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the question of the common agricultural policy. What about the Prime Minister's position? After all, he is the man who is answerable. Apparently, it is the view of the Prime Minister that it is impossible for us to depart, in essentials, from the common agricultural policy because that was the agreement made with President Pompidou. But why should the Prime Minister be such a stickler about his

promises to Pompidou when he breaks them to everyone else?
Why should the Prime Minister say, "I must stick to the absolute letter of what I agreed with the French President on the subject of the common agricultural policy even though I abandon all my views on a compulsory wages policy, price controls, 'lame ducks' and everything else"? Of course, he may say that there was no such detailed agreement between the two men. That may be the defence. Very well! If they did not get down to such details, and if our rights over these matters were not signed away, what is the objection to our motion? What is the objection to the Government's exerting their power to the very limit to ensure that we are not bound by the food price increases which our own Minister of Agriculture says are superfluous and unnecessary even to the common agricultural policy itself.
There is no reason for the Government's objection to the motion, except an abject surrender. But why should the Minister of Agriculture want to go to Brussels so disarmed? We thought that he was going to fight for the housewives of Britain. That is what was said on the radio. Now we discover that he is going into the ring with all the ferocity of Ferdinand the bull.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the motion is carrying things too far —that it is making things too difficult for him. It is not. He can remedy the matter perfectly well. He can, first, call on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to tell us why the Government object to the motion. Is it because they consider that the British House of Commons has no right to insist, in advance, when the veto should be invoked? If the Government say that, they are also claiming that the decision when the veto is to be employed—when this essential instrument is to be drawn from its scabbard—must rest solely with the Government and not with the House of Commons. That is not what we were told in the lengthy debates on entry into the EEC.
The responsibility in this debate rests not only on members of the Government and not only on the absent Liberal Party; it rests on every Member of the House of Commons, because we shall all


be answerable to the British housewives who are, as it happens, very much concerned about the question of food prices.
So I say that every Member of the House who wishes to send the Minister to Brussels to fight against food price increases, which the right hon. Gentleman says are unnecessary, has the power to do it in the Lobby at about 7 o'clock. But every Member who refuses to go into the Lobby and fight against price increases in this way should not prate around the country that he is fighting rising food prices and inflation. Let those hon. Members be silent from now on. This is the test whether the British House of Commons is to assert its right, dignity and claims on the supreme question of the food of the British people.

6.42 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asks me to explain why the Opposition motion is unacceptable. I will explain it in this way. It stems from an ignorance of the processes of the Common Market to which the Opposition have quite willingly condemned themselves by standing clear during the whole of the time when they could have made themselves heard. If they understood for a moment how things can be influenced in the Common Market they would have not have tabled such a motion.
They do not understand because they will not participate—because they fear to show the weaknesses of their own divisions. The motion deliberately seeks to pinion the Minister—to prick him on a pin so that he cannot move, and his wings are clipped. One realises perfectly well that it suits hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do this. But it does not suit the interests of the country, through its membership of the Community. Far from it.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Shore rose—

Mr. Davies: I will give way in a moment. The motion seeks to pinion the Minister because it suits the Opposition so to do. In defending the interests of the country to the best of his ability in the councils of the Community the Minister needs to be in a flexible position to negotiate. Flexibility for negotiat-

ing is essential. Far from supporting the Minister, the motion would compress his capacity to attempt to obtain those things which many hon. Gentlemen opposite have been seeking. It requires him to state now ultimata which would effectively debar him from taking part in negotiations thereafter.

Mr. Shore: When the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it he may realise that he has made a statement of great constitutional importance. He is telling the House that if it seeks to intervene— to express a point of view on behalf of the British people—in the process of policy-making or law-making in the Community between the time of the formulation of a proposal by the bureaucrats in Brussels and the final enforcement by the Council of Ministers, that inevitably limits the Minister and is contrary to the interests of the country. We cannot accept such a view.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is making a travesty of what I said. My point was that to enable the Minister to take account of the many representations that have been made during the debate it is essential that he should get into a negotiating posture. The terms of the motion are designed to prevent that from happening. I went on to say that that would be clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite were they more deeply involved in the considerations affecting the Community.

Mr. Molloy: Get on with your clipping.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is seeking to play on both sides of this instrument. He says that the effect of the common agricultural policy on food prices in this country is too small, according to the Minister, to warrant my right hon. Friend being active in the defence of the British housewife. On the other hand he says that the common agricultural policy is the biggest single menace to this country's food costs. He must decide on which side of the instrument he proposes to play.
My right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that if he were to accept the total package now proposed by the Commission, against which he has most vigorously and vehemently argued in negotiations, it would have an extraordinarily


small effect on our food costs. He gave the figures, and I will requote them because they seemed to be striking. If the total package were accepted it would have the effect in the year beginning 1st May of adding 0·2 per cent. on food costs which, looked at in terms of the retail price index, would be of the order of 0·05 per cent.
Why despite that—and here I answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—does my right hon. Friend give vent to expressions of great concern, which he repeated clearly today, about the crucial importance of the battle against inflation, on which I know him to feel strongly? It is because within this framework there are many things which need to be adjusted. Even if the effect on food prices at the moment is small, and it is, the policy as it stands needs adjustment in the way which has been so fully discussed today. He, there-force considers, quite rightly, that when he is in Brussels discussing these matters with his colleagues he is dealing with something that is of critical importance not only to consumers but to our farmers and the farming community generally.
It would be wrong to try to say that because the effect of the proposed increase is small, from our point of view, which it is, it has no real importance and he should not pursue it in his negotiations in Brussels. Quite the contrary; it is of extreme importance.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Why not accept our motion then?

Mr Davies: I have already described the extraordinary limiting effect of the motion and the need to allow the Minister to discuss these things flexibly and to reach the conclusions which the whole House seems to want.

Mr. Marten: If a conclusion is reached, that is that. Can this House reverse that conclusion?

Mr. Davies: If at the end of my right hon. Friend's negotiations there is a conclusion in Brussels it will be a conclusion of the Council of Ministers and it is, at that point, not reversible although by that time it will have taken careful account of the many representations that have been made.
I think it only right to point out to the hon. Gentlemen who have called upon my right hon. Friend to defend innumerable different points of view during the course of this debate that in order to do so he must get into the negotiations and negotiate. To try to stop him doing that at the outset is to frustrate the attainment of the objectives to which so many hon. Gentlemen have declared their support.
There has been constant reference— indeed the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) made reference to it— to the need to impose the veto. I have heard this expression frequently in the House and I know it has been very fully discussed, but in the light of my experience of the Community I would say that it is an expression which does not correctly represent the actual performance of the Community. The actual performance of the Community is to strive, through great discussion and argument, to reach a point of consensus. That consensus is reached at times with the utmost difficulty, and at times not at all. There are issues which have been outstanding in the Community literally for years for want of a consensus. But it is wrong to imagine that this starts by an individual country lodging at the outset an objection which it will in no circumstances discuss. This is not the manner of working in the Community. Were it so the Community would find it virtually impossible to conduct the enormously wide range of business it does.

Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this was the one power that, when the Bill was being pushed through, we were told we had. We were told that if we did not like something we should be able to veto it. In all the arguments and the debates I have heard, that has always been the strong argument—that in the last analysis we could say "No".

Mr. Davies: I am still saying that that precise position obtains today as it did when the right hon. Gentleman had that assurance. The difference lies in the attitude that is explicit in the motion —that a veto is lodged at the outset before discussion. This is not the manner of performance in the Community. Were it so, the Community would become entirely incompetent to discharge all the


business that in fact it does, business much of which is of undoubted benefit to us. I want to assure hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House that the provisions for the absolutely major national interest of any country being protected to the final point of agreement—

Mr. Molloy: What about our country? Talk about Britain. The right hon. Gentleman is not an EEC Minister.

Mr. Davies: I am talking about Britain. This country is a member of the Community, and I referred to it as such.
To revert to the question which the right hon. Gentleman put, let there be no doubt that in the last resort the vital interests of this country can be defended by the refusal to agree to something which is passing through the Council. But to assume that such action should be taken before discussion, before negotiation, is to assume something which seems to me to be basically unsound. This was the precise position that the right hon. Gentleman's motion sought to put to my right hon. Friend.
I will deal now with another matter to which a great deal of reference was made in the course of the debate, and that is the future of the common agricultural policy. This matter was raised constantly in the course of the discussion, and it is of vital interest. The truth is that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did my right hon. Friend less than justice. My right hon. Friend referred to many of the points to which the hon. Gentleman said subsequently that no reference had been made.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister made absolutely no reference at all either in his statement last week or today to the fact that the Commission had proposed a fundamental review of agricultural policy, and that was the major burden of my criticism.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman in fact referred to several items to which he complained that the Minister had made no reference, and that was not correct. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture freely agrees that he did not make reference to this today

because the survey is directed at the longer-term working of the common agricultural policy and not the price determinations with which we are currently concerned. But neither my right hon. Friend nor I consider the survey as anything other than of the utmost importance. It is vitally important that the Commission should—and will now—review in depth the working of the common agricultural policy, having regard to the very evolutionary nature of that policy. Nobody can doubt that in the years that have already gone by the common agricultural policy has not been static. It has been evolving, and its basis has been moving. The numbers of people employed in the industry, the size of farms, the number of farms, the nature of farms, the technology of the industry—all have been in a constant state of evolution.
It is only right that, as the Community —and I think this is very evident at the moment—becomes more and more preoccupied with the effect of food prices on the living standards and the cost of living of its people and its own inflationary problems, it, too, should consider this to be a moment at which it needs to look in depth at the nature of the agricultural policy. I detect among those I meet in the Community and the Council a universal feeling of anxiety about the impact of inflation on food prices, and I have absolutely no doubt that this feeling will continue to be one which will strengthen and not weaken. Let me say that the intention of the Commission to conduct this survey now is one which we certainly applaud and which I think will prove to be of the greatest value.
It is also important to point out that there has been a great deal of comment about butter. I realise perfectly well that it is a particular case, but it is certainly equally true that, basing oneself upon the inevitable results of pursuing the motion which has been put forward, my right hon. Friend would be debarred from conducting just that kind of discussion which is necessary.
My right hon. Friend would undoubtedly be able now to take part in a major discussion about the whole shift of the balance of structure within milk production and livestock production.
The fact of the matter is that the amendment which the Government have put down to this motion allows the Minister to have the means of achieving this purpose. I would stress that there has already been a quite positive suggestion put forward about butter by the Commission. It is suggested that a reduction in price of the order of £100 a ton should be envisaged for butter. It is also suggested that there should be a consumer subsidy of the level of 2p per pound. So it would be quite wrong

to assume that the Commission is not constructive.

Let there be no doubt that the terms of the motion would be a means of stopping the Minister achieving the very purpose which the House has in mind. The terms of the amendment give him that liberty of action. I hope the House will support him most strongly in the action he now takes.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 261.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heseltine, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hicks, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dean, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hiley, Joseph


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Digby, Simon Wlngfield
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Astor, John
Dixon, Piers
Holland, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hott, Miss Mary


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hordern, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, Richard


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dykes, Hugh.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Howe, Rt. Hn. sir Geoffery 


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Batsford, Brian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Emery, peter
Hunt, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Farr, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Benyon, W.
Fell, Anthony
James, David


Biffen, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fidler, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joplling, Micheal


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fookes, Miss Janet
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bowden, Andrew
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Doanld


Braine, Sir Bernard
Foster, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bray, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony


Brewis, John
Fox, Marcus
Kimball, Marcus


Brlnton, Sir Tatton
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
King, Evelyn (Dorse, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kinsey, J. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gardner, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knight, Mrs.Jill


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lambton, Lord


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lamont. Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn) 
Gorst, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Le Merchant, Spencer


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony(Harrow, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


 Cary, Sir Robert 
Gray, Hamish
Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)


 Channon, Paul 
Green, Alan
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Chapman, Sydney
Grieve, Percy
Loveridge, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) 
 Luce, R. N.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grylls, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Churchill, W. S.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
MacArthur, Ian



Gurden, Harold
McCrindle, R. A.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McLaren, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall, John (wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley


Clegg, Walter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice(Farnham)


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cooke, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maddan, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Madel, David


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maginnis, John E.


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Mather, Carol


Crouch, David
Havers, Sir Michael
Maude, Angus


Crowder, F. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hay, John
Mawby, Ray


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hayhoe, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslo[...], R. J.




Meyer, Sir Anthony
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


MitchelI, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.


Moate, Roger
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Molyneaux, James
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Money, Ernle
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tilney, John


Monro, Hector
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Montgomery, Fergus
Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter


More, Jasper
Royle, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Morrison, Charles
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mudd, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn D.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, David


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Nott, John
Shersby, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Simeons, Charles
Ward, Dame lrene


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sinclair, Sir George
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Owen, Idris (Stockpart, N.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Soref, Harold
Wilkinson John


Parkinson, Cecil
Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Ian
Spence, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sproat, Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pink, R. Bonner
Stainton, Keith
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodnutt, Mark


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Worsley, Marcus


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Younger, Hn. George


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sutcliffe, John
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davidson, Arthur
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, lfor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Barnes, Michael
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Hilton, W. S.


Bishop, E.S.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hooson, Emlyn




Horam, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Booth, Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Huckfield, Leslie


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellies, Tom
Janner, Greville


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ewing, Harry
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Conian, Bernard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Judd, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Garrett, W. E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kelley, Richard


Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kerr, Russell


Cronin, John
Golding, John
Kinnock, Neil


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gourlay, Harry
Lambie, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lamborn, Harry


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lamond, James







Latham, Arthur
Oakes, Gordon
Sillars, James


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Siiverman, Julius


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Malley, Brian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orbach, Maurice
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Steel, David


Lomas, Kenneth
Padley, Walter
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Loughlin Charles
Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lyons Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strang, Gavin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pardoe, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McBride, Nei[...]
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McCartney Hugh
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


McElhone, Frank
Pavltt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


Machin, George
Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


Mackenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest G.
Tuck, Raphael


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Prescott, John
Varley, Eric G


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwnght, Edwin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Probert, Arthur
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Salnts)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Radice, Giles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marks, Kenneth
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


Marquand, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


Marsden F.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Weitzman, David


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mendelson, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Milne, Edward
Roper, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Molloy, William
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sondelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Charies R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 261.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Crowder, F. P.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. Jack


Astor, John
Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullus, Sir Eric
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dixon, Piers


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Bell, Ronald
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Benyon, W.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Biffen, John
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooke, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Bowden, Andrew
Coombs, Derek
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bray, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brewis, John
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David
Foster, Sir John







Fowler, Norman
Lambton, Lord
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Lamont, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lane, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G D.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gardner, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rost, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Royle Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Luce, R. N.
St. John-Steves, Norman


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spndys, Rt. Hn. D.


Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, lap
Scott, Nicholas


Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh &amp; Whitby)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Shersby, Michael


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)
Simeons, Charles


Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Grieve, Percy
Maddan Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
 Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Grylls, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Soref, Harold


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Speed, Keith


Gurden, Harold
Mather Caro,
Spence, John


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maude Angus
Sproat, Iain


Hall John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
stainton, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper,


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.


Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills Peter (Torrington)
Stokes, John


Haselhurst Alan
Mlscampbell, Norman
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hasting, Stephen
Mltchell, Lt.-Co,.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sutcliffe, John


 Havers, Sir Micheal
Mitchell, David (Basinstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkings, Paul
Moate, Roger
Taylor, sir charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Molyneaux, James
Charles (Eastbourne,


Hayhoe Barney
Money, Ernie
Taylor, Frank (moss side)


Heseltine, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.,


Hicks, Robert
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fernus
Temple, John M.


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth,


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Tilney, John


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hornby, Richard
Nabarro Sir Gerald
Trew, Peter


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, Jonn
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hunt, John
Orr, CaPt. L. p. S.
Waddington, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, ldris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pa9e, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


James, David
Pa9e. John (Harrow, W.)
wall, Patrick


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkinson, Cecil
Ward, Dame Irene


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maldstone,


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
pike. Miss Mervyn
White, Roger (Gravesend,


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
pink. R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn J. Enoch
Wilkinson, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wfnterton, Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy
Worsley, Marcus


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Kinsey, J. R.
Redmond, Robert



Kirk, Peter
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Oscar Murton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire. W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cant, R. B.


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Albert
Carmichael, Nell


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Robert C. (N'ctle-u-Tyne, W.)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) 
Buchan, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)







Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whltehaven)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davidson. Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies G Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Radlce, Giles


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Deakins Eric
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Doig Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand J. D
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthure
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Driber, Tom
Lwason, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dnberg Tom
Leadbltter, Ted 
Roper John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. william (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnett Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short.Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renee (Whampton.N.E.)


Ellis Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Ewing, Harry
McBrlde, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuIre, Michael
Spearing Nigel 


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Machin, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard A. W.


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Steel, David


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gaving


Garret!, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David
Summersklll, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marsden, F.
Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Torney Tom


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Melllsh, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Rapheal


Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtside)
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley Eric G


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mllian, Bruce
Walnwrlght, Edwin


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Hamling, William
Molloy, William
Wallace George


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watklns, David


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wells William (Walsall N.)


Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Glasgow, pollok)


Heifer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hilton, W. S.
Murray Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hooson, Emlyn
Oakos, Gordon
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doughlas
O' Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell, Denis (Small Health)
O'Malley, Brain
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Huckfield, Leslie




Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.



Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLER FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Joseph Haper and


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to give the highest priority to combating inflation in the

European Economic Community's overall interest; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's initiative in pressing for means of support other than raising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am sure the House will recall what I was saying 668½ hours ago about some of the things which affect London. I wish to revert to one point I made at the commencement of my speech about Clause 12. I must advise the sponsors of the Bill, through the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tudgendhat) that a number of my hon. Friends have such grave misgivings and anxieties about the clause as it stands that, unless we obtain from him a satisfactory assurance this evening that he will agree so to emasculate the clause that it does not resemble its present shape when it reaches Committee—or, much more preferably, if given an assurance to withdraw the clause altogether in its present form—we must consider dividing against the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: Since the hon. Gentleman has asked me for an assurance, this might be an appropriate time for me to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) will be replying on behalf of the sponsors.

Mr. Davis: I am not concerned about the identity of the person who gives the assurance, as long as I receive an assurance. Therefore, I shall look to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) later in the debate to answer the point.
Clause 12 confers on the GLC wide powers of arrest without warrant pursuant to byelaws which they can enact under Clause 6. It is true that the ambit of Clause 6 is not particularly wide but it relates to landing places controlled by the GLC and to works carried on at those landing places and to a variety of other things. In my view it is an unconscionable interference with the liberty of the subject for the GLC to seek powers of this kind.
When the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster made a somewhat notable and lengthy intervention in my speech, his argument was based primarily on the precedent of the Thames River Steamboat Act 1904. I have no doubt that all hon. Members are familiar with the provisions of that charter of human rights. I prefer to rely on Magna Carta and habeas corpus, but each Member is entitled to his own choice.
I looked up the curious debate in 1904 on the Thames River Steamboat Act and I discovered that nothing was said—not a word—about the Draconian powers of arrest without warrant which that Act conferred on the then London County Council. It was of interest that during the Second Reading debate John Burns, the then Member for Battersea, said that there had been
a vulgar and impudent attempt to influence hon. Members by asking them to lunch and giving them a trip on the river, and parading a half-dozen of these steamboats, with an extra coat of paint, up and down in front of the terrace.
It is true that we have had nothing of that kind as a result of our debate today, but I do not regard that as a plausible or worthy precedent on which to base an argument of that kind in relation to this Bill.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster then said that he had taken the advice of the Home Office. I find that to be the least attractive of all his arguments. I have not always found the Home Office meticulous about such matters as the liberty of the subject. This is a serious issue. If powers of arrest without warrant are to be given to the Greater London Council in circumstances such as those in envisaged in the Bill, why should not they be given to other local authorities? Why should not private individuals who run building sites, or even landing stages at Clissold Park, seek similar powers against vandalism? It is not a satisfactory argument to say that the GLC would want only a limited power of this kind. The mere fact that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster went on to say that individuals will have the protection of the police and the courts is not sufficient protection against excessive powers being granted to private persons.
Let us look at some of the subjects on which arrest without warrant can take place. They include:
prohibiting the bringing on to or the leaving at or near any council landing place of any explosive or other dangerous material or any thing which may, in the opinion of the council"—
that is to say, in the opinion of whatever council official happens to be there on the spot—
be injurious to, or prejudicially affect the use of, or cause or be likely to cause danger to any person, council landing place, vessel, work, appliance, equipment, building, facility or service …
Knowing the hon. Gentleman's belief in the liberty of the individual, I should be extremely surprised if he is satisfied to assume those powers on behalf of the Greater London Council. I am sorry that, when he intervened last time, he was not able to give a more categorical assurance.
It has to be remembered that the powers of arrest are conferred on ordinary private individuals—officials of the GLC. Some officials of the GLC have a misguided belief that they are constables, but they are not. They do not have the power of constables, apart from that power which this Bill would give them. These powers should not be conferred. Delegated functions are given to members of Securicor. A number of hon. Members—and I see they are in their places this evening-have had something to say in the past about Securicor. It troubles me that these private police forces should constantly be given increasing powers, and not simply under the terms of this Bill.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Am I to understand that, under this clause, the words "or servant" could mean anyone whom the council agrees to nominate but who may have nothing to do with the everyday work of the council at all?

Mr. Davis: I think that is right. That is my understanding of the clause, but it is not for me to define a particular clause which we are discussing. That is how I would determine it, and my hon. Friend, by implication, also seems to adopt that interpretation. These Draconian powers are totally without justification. We are entitled to demand an undertaking regarding the withdrawal of the clause. I hope

that hon. Members opposite will share this view, as this is not a party point.
We should be vigilant about the liberty of the subject particularly over Private Bills. When we were dealing with a Bill concerning the Isle of Wight a number of hon. Members took great offence to some of the legislation which was then being prescribed. There was then a long debate —or, if I remember correctly, two debates —because of the anxiety expressed. Hon. Members are entitled similarly to express anxiety this evening.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am trying to follow the hon. Member's argument. As I read this clause once any constable, officer or servant has seized the person, if that person can provide a name or address that is accepted, that is the end of it. I am not a lawyer, but if I am correct does this not go some way—I take the point the hon. Gentleman is making, and perhaps the power should not be as wide as is suggested in Clause 12—to mitigating the position? If a person gives a name and address, that would be the end of the matter and the person could not be taken before a justice or to a police station by a constable, officer or servant.

Mr. Davis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point but I cannot agree with his interpretation of the clause. The question of the provision of the name and address is an integral part of the clause. Nevertheless, we should define what is stated in this clause. The clause states:
… any constable or any officer or servant may without other warrant than this Act seize and detain any person committing or having committed any offence against any of such byelaws and whose name or residence is unknown to and cannot conveniently be ascertained by such constable, officer or servant and take him to a police station or before a justice of the peace…".
and so on. This means that, first of all, there is the question of this seizing and detention, which could go much wider than the ordinary power of arrest which is conferred on ordinary citizens by the common law. I am worried that the GLC are seeking to assume powers which are wider than the common law. It will be for the hon. Member for Chelsea to define the terms which we are considering here.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does the hon. Member agree that the real burden of


the argument should be on the previous clause, Clause 11? It is in the situation which is referred to under that clause that trouble will be caused. If an officer or servant of the council, acting under Clause 11, purports to examine a person's clothing, bags or personal effects, would this not be likely to cause a fracas possibly resulting in the person finding himself in prison, purely as a result of the action of the council's servant?

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Could my hon. Friend also give the House an indication how many officers or servants of the council are likely to be authorised to carry out these serious duties?

Mr. Davis: I cannot reply to that point No doubt the hon. Member for Chelsea will take note of this and answer the point later. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) about Clause 11. I should have noticed that myself and referred to it specifically. He is absolutely right in what he says. Prior to an arrest, there could be searching. I imagine that many people in my constituency and in my hon. Friend's constituency may not take very kindly to being searched in this way. I will not dwell on this point any further.
I wish to turn to one or two matters which were mentioned last time. I will deal with these briefly before I develop another theme relating to housing management which I think is most important. When this matter was last debated, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) referred at considerable length to the question of the proposed motorway box. Since then there has been a debate on that issue, which is of grave concern to Londoners as well as being one of the most significant issues in the GLC election.
Another interesting aspect of this argument arises from an article in The Guardian on Monday. I believe the item was also reported in the Sunday Times. The article in The Guardian stated:
The London Motorway Action Group last night demanded that Mr. Rippon, Secretary for the Environment, publish the report of his Department into the proposed west cross route of the inner London motorway box. The inspector's report was said yesterday to have

rejected the building of the route. The report was said to provide such an impressive argument that Mr. Rippon would have to accept its recommendation. But Mr. Rippon was alleged to be delaying publication of the report and his Department's decision until after the GLC's election on April 12. Rejection of the west cross route would be extremely embarrassing from the Conservative controlled GLC, which has advocated its importance as part of the motorway box.
The report goes on to quote Miss Helene Middleweek, director of the London Motorway Action Group, as saying:
Mr. Rippon must either publish the report or stand condemned of the most cynical and shabby electoral manoeuvring ".
I understand that the report has been in the Minister's hands for some time. This House—and London—are entitled to know whether the allegations in The Guardian article are true or false. We are also entitled to know whether there is any delay in the publication of the report and, if so, for what reason. One must also ask whether there is any question of suppression.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: My hon. Friend stated that this report is alleged to have been in the hands of the Minister for some considerable time. Is he aware that it is alleged that the report has been in the Minister's hands since some time last November? That means that it was in the Minister's hands well before the Minister for Transport Industries answered questions on this precise issue in the House last week, when he said that he would be publishing the report "as soon as possible". My hon. Friends will agree, I think, that tonight or some time this week would be a good opportunity for the matter to be cleared up so that the truth can be established on the record about the "cynical and incorrect" behaviour which is being alleged against the Government.

Mr. Davis: "Shabby" was the word used by Miss Middleweek, but "incorrect" may be more appropriate. Certainly, if elections are to mean anything, the people should be informed of the facts. Too many people in this country take a cynical view of our democratic process. Perhaps when situations such as this emerge there may be some justification for that.
There is a great burden upon not only the hon. Member for Chelsea. A much


greater burden rests upon the Government, to clarify the situation and to indicate whether there has been any suppression. They should give very good reasons why this publication has been delayed and, in particular, what reason there can be for not publicising it before 12th April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton and my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) referred in the previous debate to unemployment and declining industries. I mention this in passing because the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made a very interesting observation during his speech on 20th March. I gave the hon. Gentleman notice that I should be referring to this. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech and said,
I apologise for intervening but I think the record ought to be put right. In that debate I did not say that jobs should be increased. I advocated that the departure of manufacturing industries should be slowed down so that we might maintain the right balance of employment in London. I should like to get that clear.
The hon. Gentleman's response was very interesting. He said,
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the consequences are the same. If the number of jobs were allowed to slow down rather than an attempt being made to curb that effect, it would be easier to deal more quickly with the housing shortage in London."—[Official Report, 20th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 354.]
I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we repudiate that prescription for a cure for the housing shortage in London. I hope that the people of London will note the hon. Gentleman's prescription.
We then went on to talk about the problem of land hunger in the inner London boroughs. We talked in particular about the attitude displayed by Conservative outer London boroughs which are refusing to co-operate with the stress areas of London to take effective action to provide land for those areas, land that is simply not available in places such as Hackney. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and I have referred to this matter on a number of occasions in the House. We have referred to the squalid deals that have gone on between the GLC and Bromley, Barnet, Kingston and Richmond. The effects of those deals has

been to deny any real possibility, apart from a handful of people being moved into these areas through the transfer system, for inner London not to solve its housing problems but at least to take some reasonable steps to mitigate the hardship that is the daily life of people in areas such as mine.
It is also interesting that the GLC has colluded with the present Government to provide no remedy for the increasing problems of homelessmess which are affecting the stress areas of London. These problems have to be witnessed to be understood. It is not just a matter of talking in statistical terms but a matter of seeing people who are deprived of their accommodation, due often to the wantonness of private landlords who want to do well on the housing market at the expense of their tenants. All sorts of problems arise. It is not simply a problem of the man deprived of his accommodation.
Within the term "homelessness" one is entitled to include about a million Londoners who are living in the most squalid and horrible conditions. The GLC provides no regional housing strategy to deal with this situation. It provides no effective leadership. Fewer than 4,000 houses were built by the GLC in 1972 in a situation which demands that at least 12,000 houses a year be built. The GLC proclaims loudly and proudly that it has sold 15,000 houses in London and has recouped £50 million as a result. But it would take £125 million, plus the cost of the land, in order to replace that housing stock.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend saying that the GLC built only 4,000 houses in 1972? I am astonished by that, because my area, with one-sixteenth of the population, also built 4,000 houses—under Labour control.

Mr. Davis: It was less than 4,000. I think it was 3,700. That shows the degree of neglect of those in charge of the GLC housing programme.

Mr. William Hamling: Criminal.

Mr. Davis: There is absolutely no understanding of the fact that as a result of this situation about 50,000 people on the transfer list of the GLC find that


their hopes of finding other accommodation are constantly diminishing.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in recent years the Greater London Council has been able to increase its annual number of lettings from 22,000 to 24,000? Is not it the number of lettings which matters to families who are in need of rehousing?

Mr. Davis: I do not regard that as a very remarkable increase. It is not the number of lettings which matters. It is the amount of new accommodation which is being provided. The hon. Gentleman ought to see some of the lettings being provided in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and in many others. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
I refer specifically to Hackney because I know more about Hackney than I know about other constituencies. But this matter affects the stress areas of inner London generally. In Hackney we are faced with a declining population. There is a racket in house prices. Even the most appalling accommodation is selling nowadays at between £11,000 and £15,000 —even in Hackney. There has been a forecast of a drop in population from 217,000 to 160,000 in the next 10 years. It is forecast that they will be mostly elderly and sick people. The young people are moving out of areas such as this, and there is no balance in the community.
What we have to do, in which we need the help of the GLC—perhaps we shall get it after 12th April with a change of administration—is to get good housing for young couples. We must ensure that more schools and hospitals are built so that we can attract and not reject the young in areas such as mine. It is quite clear that there is a need for more rented accommodation. Whatever one may think about the system of private landlordism in areas such as Hackney, the fact is that private rented accommodation cannot be provided. We need a massive increase in local authority developments, with substantially increased Government aid. We need also a massive extension of municipal action.
On my last important point, one would have hoped that the GLC might have

thought it necessary to take additional powers to deal with this matter. It is grotesque maladministration in housing management and an insensitivity to the needs of people, particularly in the older GLC blocks. I noticed, as an example of the insensitivity of GLC management, that the Lambeth Housing Committee alleged that the Greater London Council had set fair rent assessments on average 30 per cent. above Lambeth's fair rent assessment. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton indicates assent to the factual nature of that proposition. It is a scandalous state of affairs which certainly requires investigation.
People wait ages for things, even the most simple things, to be done in these old blocks of flats. Months pass before minor repairs are undertaken. Letters take weeks, if not months, to be answered. Indeed, unless the Member of Parliament intervenes or the Greater London councillor has certain problems referred to him, the private citizen is placed in an impossible position. It is no small wonder that people on the Kingsmead Estate in Hackney feel deprived, forgotten and unwanted.
Indeed, in Haggerston, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, the local authority was asked to call in the public health inspector to deal with neglect by the Greater London Council. That has happened in my constituency. It happened in 1970 in Paragon Road. The GLC had so neglected the affairs of a terrace of 12 houses that a number of summonses were issued and there were a number of court hearings. It is intolerable that one local authority should be obliged to take this kind of action against another.
I am sometimes asked: is the Tory GLC responsible? The trouble is that it is completely irresponsible. A situation which leads to summonses being issued cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. These are not supposed to be Rachman-type landlords; they are local authority scrutineers of what the public needs. This is a function that is sadly being forgotten.
One of the troubles with so many GLC estates is the lack of adequate care-taking. I read a report in a local newspaper that the leader of the tenants association in Hackney had said that


GLC tenants are handing over their flats for "key" money and moving out without the council knowing. As rents are paid through a rent office, rather than handed to a rent collector, illegal tenants can use the names of the previous tenants without detection. The association was complaining about the cessation of the resident caretaker system. It said that the mobile caretakers were remiss in their maintenance and cleaning tasks and that the absence of resident caretakers led to vandalism. I am sure that is right and that it is repeated all over London.
So it is an urgent matter, particularly for third-rate accommodation, such as that on the Kingsmead Estate, that adequate caretaking should be provided. This means the recruitment of more caretakers and giving them better conditions of work. They can hardly be attracted with the present conditions. I hope that in that way some degree of comfort can be given to those unfortunate enough to be required to live in this standard of accommodation.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the worsening situation that the GLC now accepts as a practical attitude that every ground-floor flat on its estates should have corrugated sheeting over all the windows and doors.

Mr. Davis: I am sure one could go through the whole chronicle of examples. However, I do not propose to do that tonight. Suffice to say that I hope I have given some prima facie evidence that the GLC in this important sphere of housing management needs to do something drastic and needs to do it soon. There is no indication from the Conservative-controlled GLC that it is cognisant of this dramatic and important need.
I believe that the Bill is deficient. It is not worthy of our support. We ought not to give it our support unless the hon. Member for Chelsea provides us with a reasoned understanding.

Mr. Tugendhat: The hon. Gentleman cannot end on that note. He must go one stage further. Will he explain whether he regards only those clauses which are the responsibility of the GLC as being deficient or the clauses which are the responsibility of the boroughs?

Mr. Davis: My attack has been launched primarily, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, on the Greater London Council. Yes, I think that the Bill is monstrously deficient. None the less, I shall not divide against Second Reading if the hon. Member for Chelsea deals adequately—I know he will try to deal reasonably—with the points that I have raised on Clause 12. However, we want more than a display of forensic ability tonight. We want a real assurance that the effect of this clause will be eliminated. I hope that that assurance will be forthcoming.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I hope that I speak for my hon. Friends in saying that I had some difficulty in following the tenor and themes of the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). He began, if I may put it this way without being discourteous, with a kind of—how shall I express it?—barrack-room lawyer's type of expose of some of the more esoteric bits and pieces, mainly in Clause 12 but also in other parts of the Bill. He then went on to make some kind of local constituency speech for the Hackney Gazette, or whatever is the name of the well-known Right-wing journal in that borough. He then made a feeble clarion call expounding, indirectly—which may be the best way of doing it—Labour's cause to be considered on 12th April. It was a very feeble effort. He finished by asking for assurances about some of the legal aspects of the Bill—making points which were as esoteric as those he made at the beginning of his speech.
Be that as it may, in due course there may be a chance to glean enlightenment on some of the mysteries of the hon. Gentleman's speech, so there is no need to dwell on it at length now.
Equally predictably, besides the comments made by the hon. Gentleman we had the traditional obeisance to some kind of electoral speech. After all, the GLC election is now only a week away, and the hon. Member was clearly extremely imbued with his obligations. I suppose that I may take some comfort from the gloomy, lugubrious countenances of his hon. Friends while he was doing it. In what the hon. Gentleman said when he left the legal points there


was no magic about Labour's message to Londoners for next week's election. That is understandable. It is easy to see that the Opposition on the Greater London Council are entirely deficient in any attraction to the electorate of Greater London.
I understand the acute difficulties in which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central and his colleagues find themselves. There is little for them to grumble about, in a fundamental sense, after six years of successful Conservative administration in Greater London. We can all think of the things that we would like the next Conservative-controlled GLC administration—after 12th April—to do. We all have our minor criticisms and subsidiary arguments about things that the Conservative-controlled GLC has not had time to do in the last six years. That is understandable. But their attempt to construct anything more fundamental has failed abysmally and dropped like the classic lead balloon not only in this House but outside it in this campaign.
Again that is understandable because one of the evidential facts which the public in London will be weighing up carefully, in an election which may not have some of the strident manifestations of a parliamentary election but which none the less will be a serious and considered campaign for the public, is what has been achieved since 1967. Having previously gone through the glottal stop of three years of abortive Labour administration when nothing happened in London, substantial progress has been made since in all the key areas—

Mr. Freeson: My intervention really relates to the hon. Gentleman's last remark and to an earlier point that he made. Does he describe as a point of unimportant detail a cutback in housing starts annually from about 7,000 a year, rising on a programme to 12,000 a year, to fewer than 4,000 a year? In that connection, does the hon. Gentleman suggest that nothing was done prior to the election of the present administration, when there was twice the programme of house building in London than that operating at present? Is that a detail or an important matter, and ought not whoever is responsible at County Hall to increase drastically the house building programme in London on land which is available?

Mr. Dykes: The length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was not justified by what he said. It was very predictable. I regard the future of the housing programme in London as one of the key areas, together with transportation and education. But that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said about the future strategy of London's housing. I may have an opportunity to develop that theme later in my remarks.
We were all intrigued by the description of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) of how the boarding up of windows was characteristic of the present Greater London Council's policy. That is typical of the tone of remarks which we expect from Opposition Members in debates of this kind.
In this debate we have to consider not only the important aspects of the Bill and the fact that it is a technical measure with a number of valid legal points to be made, but that it is a mechanistic and functional piece of legislation which is essential to the existence of the Greater London Council and its relationships with the boroughs in certain specialist areas. But that does not gainsay the real success of the contribution made by the Conservative administration in making Greater London as a whole—the most important capital city in the world—a city which I believe will improve in the long term if the present administration is allowed to continue in office.
I pay tribute to the achievements of the present Conservative administration of the Greater London Council. It has achieved a relationship with the boroughs on housing which in the long term can only lead to a successful housing programme. It is in the early stages, and I agree that there is still a great deal of inadequate housing. But that is above all a local responsibility. The present housing conditions will be solved only by those who are at the centre points in their localities.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite insist on saying what a terrible state some GLC flats and estates are in, as if this was a unique state of affairs. They only have to visit Socialist-controlled boroughs like Islington to see the grotesque conditions in which a Socialist


local authority maintains its housing. I know, because Islington is where I reside, so that in that sense I have an interest in the borough. It is but one example, and there are plenty of others.

Mr. Ronald Brown: To which housing estate is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Dykes: I move on from housing to consider other areas of responsibility of the GLC. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely preoccupied with the future of transportation and traffic movement in London. Under its Conservative administrators the GLC has made an imaginative start. It has got things moving to improve traffic flows and to balance the legitimate role of the private motor car, none the less saying that the private car and the heavy lorry especially will have to be balanced sensibly in the future with public transport. Again the development of policies of this kind will mean that we shall have a city of which we can be proud.
Those are the realities of next week's contest, which will be an important choice. Even if, as often happens in local elections, the number of people who turn out to vote next week is modest in terms of nationwide elections, it will be a vitally important choice for those who vote and for those who say that they are making a certain decision by not voting. Whatever our party views, we all hope that there will be a wide expression of opinion.
The next four years in Greater London —not three this time—are critical. It is in that sense that we have to ensure that this Bill and the powers that it accords the GLC on a continuing basis are adequate, and I say that not only in a non-political way because I believe that the political choices are vital in support of a Conservative administration which has already made a successful start in running London.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I do not propose to pursue the vague generalisations and repeated congratulations to County Hall which we heard from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I am sure that most town planners recognise that the GLC

has failed signally to overcome some of London's basic problems.
I return to the Bill and the Under-Secretary's speech. I noted that the hon. Gentleman, whom we all like and who comes from Birmingham, was wise to stick very closely to his script.
We last discussed the Greater London Council and its Bill without knowledge of the recently published report on the docks. Since then we have all seen that report, and in this debate it is well worth considering some of the fundamental and long-term planning problems of London and discussing some of the considerations which ought to apply.
One of the questions which I should like to put to the promoters of the Bill and to the Government concerns the future that they see for development in the dockland areas, especially what they see as being the chief agents of development in those areas. Do they envisage that development as being largely in the hands of publicly-elected local authorities, such as the GLC, or private developers who are hungry for profits?
For how long are these plans expected to be discussed? For how long will decisions about the character of the development be delayed? While opinions are being canvassed and discussions proceed, and while private plans multiply, the sale of land continues, partial redevelopment continues, and dereliction persists.
I live in South-East London and I travel through the docks area of the South Bank regularly, day after day. I have lived in that area for a long time. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of dereliction in the area, and that there is great scope for redevelopment. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) knows that very well. That is particularly the situation on the South Bank, which is the bank that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford know.
There are great opportunities. With vision, South-East London could be rebuilt in such a way as to permit people not only to work and provide industry, but to live with dignity. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) knows that, too. It is astonishing that the history of the last 25 years is one of failure to achieve any


real plan for the redevelopment of London. I hope that the plans for the dock area of London will not suffer the same fate as the plans—or at least the vision—that we had way back at the end of the last war for the future of London. That hope applies particularly to those who live and have to endure the prevailing conditions in inner London.
It is important to consider the opportunity that we have been given for the development of the river, the river banks and the dock areas, and to ensure that the plans which are made are good and comprehensive—plans which will improve the quality of life of the people who live in the area now and who will live there in future.
Hon. Members who live in and represent South-East London constituencies have received representations about the use of hydrofoils and hovercraft on the river. Those representations have been made by river users who are faced with the conditions brought about by the increase in the use of hydrofoils and hovercraft, and especially by members of rowing clubs. I am a member of a rowing club in Greenwich—the Curlew—and members of my club and other rowing clubs down the river are concerned about this development.
What steps are the promoters of the Bill taking to ensure that people— including young people and children— using the river for pleasure can continue to use it with safety? What is the effect on river banks, piers and landing places of the increasing use of fast-moving craft? The banks and piers were not designed for them.
It is nearly 30 years since we first talked of a plan for London. Against the background of the Layfield Report we can think in general terms. Those of us who are social historians will remember the picture of London in William Booth's time. It was a picture of unemployment and great poverty, particularly in East and South-East London. Many people thought that William Booth's London was gone for ever, together with the black spots which he talked about in parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), parts of the constituency

of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and parts of my borough.
When I consider the reduction of available jobs which has already taken place in London I wonder whether the Government, or at least the GLC, have not been deliberately reducing the population in order to fit a situation which provides fewer jobs. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has retired from the Chamber, no doubt exhausted by his speech. He suggested that that has been the GLC's policy.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Not only are we losing jobs in our part of London; the tailoring and garments industry is going back to the sweat shops. Only recently a deputation of workers was complaining bitterly—my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and I were present—that those who have a job in that industry in the area of London to which my hon. Friend refers have to operate in pokey little holes, and that the GLC have done nothing to prevent that situation developing.

Mr. Hamling: That reminds me of the work not only of William Booth but of Beatrice Webb, Edith Hogg, and so on.
I am reminded of the fur-pullers of London, the tailoring trade and other trades. These are real and important questions that I hope not only the promoters of the Bill but the people of London will be concerned about.

Mr. Jessel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I redirect what he is saying about William Booth and Beatrice Webb to the second half of the twentieth century. Is he aware that all through the 1950s and early 1960s the London County Council, which was continually under Labour control in that period, systematically made it part of its policy to persuade industry to move out of London, with the avowed objective of relieving the housing shortage?

Mr. Hamling: I am well aware of the history. I do not want a penny lecture from the hon. Gentleman. I have lived in the borough of Greenwich, and I have consistently put forward over the last 20 years the view that I am now putting forward. I have been consistent, despite what may have been done by those who


have governed in County Hall. I hope that the House will not be diverted from a consideration of the real problems of the people of London by petty party considerations. I have never allowed myself to be diverted by such considerations.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at my history and my record, particularly that on motorways and on unemployment in Greenwich, I hope that he will get away from the petty party point of view. I am putting forward important considerations for the people of London. Over the years I have seen the loss of 20,000 or 30,000 jobs—

Mr. James Wellbeloved: More than that.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, more than that. I am not thinking of neighbouring boroughs but particularly about my own borough. It is something we have been raising year in and year out. We have now persuaded the London Labour Party of the magnitude of the whole question. It concerns thousands of men and women, particularly those who live in inner London and in the constituencies that my hon. Friends and I have the honour to represent. Our constituents are not worried about petty, partisan issues. They are worried about the real issues of jobs, housing and rents. They are the issues with which we should be concerned in the debate. So far, I have not made a political attack on anyone. I am concerned about the considerations the House should have in mind when it thinks about the future of London.
Many of the people who have lost jobs in our part of the world find employment elsewhere, but only at the expense of travelling great distances to work—not just up to town but across London to places like Croydon, Carshalton and Beckenham, and even across the river.

Mr. Lipton: North-West London.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, indeed. Some of my constituents who live in the part of London in which I live—Abbey Wood— are getting up at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning to go to work and not returning home until 10 o'clock at night.
The changing pattern of employment in London is a matter of concern to the GLC as well as to the Government. The

pattern of public transport in London has not been built up on travel across London in various directions. It has been built up rather like a spiders' web. That is why so many of us have been concerned about developing a new ring route for railways, to try to persuade people to use public transport by making it easier for them to do so. There is a need for the GLC to have further powers to improve public transport, especially the railways. The railway authorities are well aware of that. Are the people who rule London aware of its importance?
There is a new concept, of travelling across London and not simply to the centre. People in my part of the world are concerned that there should be opportunities for employment for skilled workers, and that we should not become simply an area for service industries. Those are important considerations against the background of the Bill.
I hope that from the debate will come a general view of how London should look in a generation or so—the population distribution, a positive picture of industry and commerce, and a positive view on the future of the Port of London. Certainly for those who live in riverside areas like Greenwich, Deptford, South-wark, Poplar or Limehouse, it seems that the Port of London has little or no future. Looking at the state of the Roya Group today and comparing it with what it looked like 20 or 30 years ago, we realise that there has been a vast change.
We have talked about replanning river banks. In doing so there is a great need to remove the industrial slums and to provide new industries to cut down travel. I know that in the past both major parties in the House have tended to take the view that we need to think of job opportunities in parts of the country other than the South-East. I spoke earlier of Charles Booth's London. I have often said that there is no guarantee that we shall not return to the situation that then existed, unless we have an increase of employment opportunities in London and the South-East.
Is there a general picture of the development of housing and the location of schools? When we talked about the London Plan 25 or 30 years ago we had that sort of thing in mind. I remember the London school plan, and I know that


my hon. Friends the Members for South-wark (Mr. Lamborn) and Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) remember it well. What has happened to it? What has happened to the overall picture of social capital in London? Is it to be swallowed up? Is it to disappear beneath the burden of the private development which is going on piecemeal even now?
The great obstacle to the creation of a reasonable life and the development of a coherent plan for London is the inflated value of land. That inflated value can provide for private development and office development, but will it provide for the development of housing for the ordinary person, or for the young couple who cannot afford to pay much more than £10,000 for a house which is modest enough in all conscience?
We know from experience in other parts of the country what great disparities there are in the value of land and the price of houses. In London today the value of land is rising at such a pace that I forecast that in 10 years' time it will be impossible to carry on any projects at all for council housing—either GLC or borough council. Already there are in my borough council flats of which the rent is £16 per week. That is in Thamesmead, which my hon. Friend knows well. It is something about which he is always complaining. What is it to be like in 10 years' time if land values go on rising at the present rate? There must be some answer from this House and from the GLC to the problem of the homeless people of London. A moment ago people were bandying figures about. All I can say is that in a borough like Southwark there are 8,000 on the housing list.

Mr. Ronald Brown: There are 8,000 families.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, 8,000 families. How many are there in Tower Hamlets, Shoreditch, Finsbury and Hackney?— thousands upon thousands. They cannot afford £16 a week. They cannot afford the inflated rents we already see. We have private development going on piecemeal on the river front, with town houses at Wapping at £27,000. There are plans for private development all along the river. There must be some stop to this, because increasing land values will defeat any comprehensive plans we may have for the future of London.
I want to speak briefly on something referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) some time ago, The London Properly Letter, a publication sent to businessmen interested in making fortunes, or a lot of money, out of development. To quote from the Letter:
Since the Tories returned to power house prices have boomed as never before, giving dealers a rising market to profit from. What's more, loans for once are readily forthcoming "—
that, I think, is now a little out of date.
Office development restrictions have been shot away. … Landlords have started to cash in on the new bedsitter boom. Converting properties of every type to flats for sale has become a big business. The Government is exceedingly generous with improvement grants, which makes this operation very profitable.
We know what is happening with regard to the improvement of housing in my hon. Friend's constituency of Brixton. People on low incomes are having to get out of the borough, and to get out of Lambeth and Islington, because they cannot afford these inflated prices. I understand it is called the "gentry-fication" of London. That is what is happening now and if ordinary people cannot live in London, the ordinary people who are expected to do the jobs in London boroughs, looking after hospitals on the meagre wages they have, to run London Transport and do all the other jobs, where are they to live? Not in £16, £25 or £30 per week flats. Pick up any copy of the Evening Standard or the Evening News and look at the advertisements. Is that the future of London that the Government or the GLC contemplate? It is not one which we on these benches contemplate and it is about time we had a real look at some of these London problems of housing and redevelopment.
I want to refer very briefly to transport. In my borough of Greenwich we are very concerned with the transport aspects of the GLC Development Plan, particularly the motorway complex. This has been going on for a very long time and we have not had any real answer to many of the questions that we would like to put. We on these benches have said repeatedly there is a need for London to look at transport as a whole, at the importance of transport and the need for a great deal of capital to be sunk into


public transport. The whole of south east London is becoming a vast lorry park. If lorries are excluded from central London all that will happen is that they will concentrate at Shoreditch, Southwark, Rotherhithe and Lambeth. There must be a halt to this development.
There must be tremendous improvements quickly in public transport. In The Cut there is double parking every day of the week except Sundays. One finds double parking there at any time and the police are quite powerless to stop it. The main link road in London, down Tower Bridge Road, goes through a street market. There is parking throughout its length every day of the week. Yellow lines and double yellow lines are useless. That is the kind of picture we have of the part of London we represent. It is one that we do not accept and are not prepared to tolerate for much longer. Yet we are to face even greater invasions by road traffic through the building of a complex of motorways. I wish to refer briefly to the Dover radial road. One of the troubles about building motorways partially is that gaps are left. I am thinking particularly of the three-mile stretch of the Dover radial road from Falconwood onwards that goes through the middle of my constituency. A motorway brings the traffic, the motorway stops and what happens to that traffic? It stands still in the Rochester Way. All I ask the Government is to finish that three-mile stretch and then leave us alone. Take the M20 somewhere else. Take the Ringway away. Four motorways have been driven through the heart of my constituency and we are not prepared to accept any more. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. Let them tell us what they propose to do with the rest. I hope that we shall have an answer to these important questions soon.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) about the River Thames. Like him, I represent a Thames-side constituency, although I believe that there is a considerably longer length of river bank in mine. It is longer than that in any other constituency in Greater London. I share his views about the way these river bank areas have been affected. It is necessary to

maintain an attractive environment for the whole length of the river in London so that people can enjoy the surroundings in which they live and not have the view ruined by too many large blocks.
I wish to reply to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West about a point they raised on which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central criticised me personally. That dealt with the matter of employment in London and referred to something I said in a previous debate. I do not withdraw one word of what I said then. I fully appreciate the concern of the Labour Members— it is shared equally by Conservative Members—concerning the housing and employment problems in London generally. I would suggest that Labour hon. Members who are perturbed about these matters do not always face up intellectually to the interaction between housing and employment problems. Any attempt artificially to boost employment in the Greater London area whether it is to increase employment or to arrest a decline in employment, will inevitably make worse the housing shortage. I believe that Labour Members should face up to that position. London, like other capital cities, is a magnet for people looking for jobs. Perhaps all capital cities have their Dick Whittingtons who want to come to the capital to seek their fortunes, and there is no sign of that not being the case today. People are moving into London to look for better jobs, and they come not only from the provinces but from Ireland and even overseas.
The population of Greater London has fallen from about 8 million a generation ago to just over 7 million now. The Greater London Council has had misgivings about whether such a fall in population was to be welcomed but the Layfield Panel in its report, which was published a few weeks ago, said categorically that these misgivings were unfounded and that there was nothing to fear in the population of London falling to 5½ million or 6 million by the end of the century. The Layfield Panel saw no reason to worry about this and I see no reason artificially to boost employment in London. There is already virtually a state of full employment. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West


referred to bus drivers. I was told recently by London Transport, to whom I complained about bus services in my constituency, that it had the utmost difficulty in finding enough bus drivers, certainly in West London, where the economy is affected by the boom at Heathrow Airport. There is full employment. The number of people looking for jobs is far outweighed by the number of vacancies.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) argued at an earlier stage in the debate that the decline in the number of manufacturing jobs was to be regretted. I think the hon. Member for Acton said that the number had fallen by 170,000 from a total of 1,400,000 between 1966 and 1970—a fall of about 12 or 13 per cent. That is not something to be regretted. It is a situation which is to be expected for two reasons.

Mr. Hamling: Thousands of jobs have been lost in South-East London. Workers such as tool makers possess skills which are needed by this nation. If these people become hospital porters, go into service industries and have to travel from Woolwich or Charlton 15 or 20 miles to work which does not demand that skill, is that not an indication that something is wrong?

Mr. Jessel: Of course there is something wrong in a situation in which people cannot use the skills they have acquired, but we are living in an age in which the tendency has been for industry to move out of London. As the population of London has dropped from about 8 million to about 7 million, so people have "jumped across" the Green Belt to towns 30 or 40 miles from the city centre—to towns such as Maidstone, Guildford, Reading and St. Albans. These towns have seen a great increase in population. Many people are much happier and more comfortable living out there than they were in the congested conditions of London. That movement of population is one reason why the number of jobs in London has fallen.
The other reason is the growth in the demand for services. As the economy of the country has grown over the last generation, people have been spending a

larger proportion of their growing real income on services and a smaller proportion upon goods. As their real incomes increase more and more people are requiring the services of banks, insurance companies, building societies, restaurants, women's hairdressers and so on. Their expenditure on manufactured goods is concentrated on items for which productivity has increased and it is therefore no longer necessary to have such a large proportion of people employed in manufacturing compared with service industries. There is nothing intrinsically bad or evil about that. There is a demand for services and people are being employed in order to provide those services. Meanwhile productivity in manufacturing industries is increasing with a declining work force. The Layfield Panel saw nothing to worry about in this and I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite seem to deplore it so much.
Another accusation made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central was that the Richmond Borough Council, which covers the area of my constituency, had taken part in what he described as a squalid deal. He named it as one of four London boroughs which had done so in connection with GLC housing. He is not in the Chamber at present but I should like him to know that the Richmond Borough Council has recently doubled the number of nominations which it accepts from the GLC to 100 a year.
This may not sound a very large number but I would remind hon. Members that Richmond is one of 20 outer London boroughs. It has a population of two-thirds of the average borough so that if every outer London borough adopted a similar policy there would be an additional 3,000 nominations per year available to the Greater London Council. That is a substantial number.
It is the very number mentioned by an hon. Member opposite when he said that production of houses by the GLC had fallen from 7,000 a year to 4,000 a year. He did not mention that this drop in production last year was entirely due to a prolonged building strike. Everyone knows, if he bothers to inquire into it, that this strike had an adverse effect on production. Despite this the GLC has managed to increase its total number of new lettings from 22,000 a year to 24,000 a year. This is a considerable increase


and one which should be strongly commended.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The opportunities that we have in this House for discussing the problems of London are few and far between. This is despite the fact that the population of London is almost equal to the combined populations of Scotland and Wales. We all know how much time is allocated to Scottish and Welsh problems—far in excess of what is allowed to the Metropolis.
The Greater London Council has become one of the most bureaucratic and inefficient institutions in this country, if not in the world. Let me quote one simple example. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends have been faced with this problem. An old couple whose children have grown up, married and moved away, want to move from their three-bedroom flat into a one-bedroom flat. The amount of work imposed upon an hon. Member trying to effect this one transfer is quite inconceivable.
The GLC has produced a new kind of creature. I can only compare them with primeval mastodons floundering around in vast seas of paper, unable to know what is going on outside the confines of County Hall. They make plans which they are unable to carry out. Then they find themselves having to bring in outside managment consultants and all kind of other outside bodies, costing thousands of pounds, to tell them how to run their organisation.
On the question of simply transferring a tenancy from one council tenant to another, the machine has completely broken down and it is almost impossible to do this. If I were given the power, I could effect all the transfers I want to arrange without consulting County Hall just by going into one street and telling a tenant that there is somebody in the next street who has more accommodation than he needs and they can swap. But heaven help anybody who tries to organise that through the official channels of County Hall. It just cannot be done.
I want to refer also to the kind of mania which now besets the planners of County Hall in favour of motorways. So

far as the Borough of Lambeth is concerned, many thousands of houses are to be demolished or adversely affected by the construction of Ringway One. It is a very curious thing that the Government have finally decided on the construction of Ringway One, which goes through some of the poorest areas of London, and have abandoned Ringways Two and Three, which go through Conservative areas. I wonder whether that is accident or part of a carefully designed plan. I do not know. All I know is that many thousands of people are living in suspense because they do not know what will happen to their homes in the next few years. Any attempt to get precise information from anybody as to exactly where Ringway One is to be constructed is fruitless. It is impossible to get any definite information.
I can see that it is necessary to have ringways round London, but the traffic problem of London could probably be better dealt with if the Greater London Council adhered to its original idea of having Ringway Two or Ringway Three.
On top of all that, the Greater London Council now has a hair-brained idea, a £1 million scheme to widen Brixton Hill into a six-lane highway. Just imagine what will happen in that £1 million scheme if the Greater London Council ever gets it off the ground. On one side of Brixton Hill, governed by an ancient Act called the Rush Common Act, we have houses with large gardens, which cannot be built upon. The original idea of the council was to have a woodland walk through this Rush Common land on the east side of Brixton Hill. This would have provided a very pleasant woodland walk for the benefit of people living in an area which is very short of open space. What does the Greater London Council do? It produces a plan for a six-lane highway which will kill any possibility of having what would have been a charming woodland walk along the length of Brixton Hill.
Most hon. Members know that Brixton Hill starts somewhere near Streatham and slopes down towards Brixton itself. The traffic already proceeds down the hill, at a very unreasonable speed. Imagine what will happen when all those six lanes of traffic eventually converge in the heart of


Brixton, which cannot be widened. There will be a kind of whirlpool of traffic, which will make life quite impossible for shoppers or anyone else who has any legitimate business to carry out in that neighbourhood.
The Greater London Council has a good plan to deal with the juggernauts. It intends to ban large lorries within central London.

Mr. Deakins: Will my hon. Friend tell us, before he leaves the point about the £1 million and the six-lane motorway, whether the people of Brixton could not use that £1 million more beneficially in rather different ways?

Mr. Lipton: Yes. With 14,000 people on the Lambeth Council housing waiting list, there are many other uses to which £1 million could be put.
The G.L.C. has not worked out what will be the effect of banning large lorries from central London, but the effect will be that the adjoining areas will be inundated with lorries and there will be a substantial increase in heavy traffic at the northern end of the London Borough of Lambeth.
Lambeth Borough Council is concerned about the proposal because it has not been able to obtain from the GLC detailed information about the traffic study upon which the proposal to ban juggernauts from central London is based, nor is there any indication that the effect of the ban on surrounding areas has been considered. That is a further example of how the GLC operates under its present management. It tries to deal with a small section of the problem without regard to the consequences in the immediate vicinity.
Reference has been made to the GLC's housing record. In the London boroughs the result has been disastrous. A long time ago the GLC decided to transfer a large part of its housing accommodation to the London boroughs. For several years before that transfer was effected the GLC deliberately ran down its repairs programme for those old GLC estates. As a result the London boroughs were suddenly landed with a lot of semi-slum property which it became their duty to put right.
Reference has also been made to the curious way in which the GLC under its present management has arrived at provisional fair rent assessments. The rent levels proposed by the GLC are outrageous. Officers of the Lambeth Borough Council were asked to take a random sample of these GLC so-called fair rents. I will take one instance from my own constituency of an old block of GLC flats which is now called Renton Close. The GLC gave it a fashionable name so that people would forget that it used to be known as Briscoe Buildings. A four-roomed flat at Renton Close is supposed to bear a rental of £315 per annum—more than £6 a week—compared with a similar property owned by the Lambeth Borough Council which would bear a rent of £231. There is a difference of almost £100 a year in the rents of those two properties. For a three-roomed flat in Renton Close the GLC assessment is £5.94 a week, whereas the Lambeth assessment for a similar property would be £4.03—a difference of £1.91 a week. There is something radically wrong with the way in which the GLC is calculating its so-called fair rents.
Reference has been made to the contribution that could be made by outer London boroughs towards a solution of the housing problem in the inner London boroughs. Let me quote one example. Lambeth happens to own some land in Croydon. When Lambeth proposed to build houses on that land, the Croydon Borough Council objected. An appeal is pending and the Ministry will decide in due course to what use that land should be put. That is merely an example of the difficulties that face an inner London borough owning land in an outer London borough where the Conservative-controlled outer London borough objects to the building of houses for working-class people.
From every point of view the record of the GLC during the past few years has been most reprehensible. Several hon. Members have reminded us of the GLC elections on 12th April. Had they not done so, I would not have mentioned the matter. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made what could be regarded as a good party political speech on behalf of the Conservative Party relating to the


Greater London Council. As he has mentioned the GLC elections on 12th April, I take the opportunity to express the hope that the people of London will make sure that after 12th April the GLC will be under different management.
It is very unfortunate we have not had a fuller attendance at the debate tonight. It is also very unfortunate that much of what has been said in the course of the debate will receive no mention in most of tomorrow morning's newspapers. But the people of London know what is going on, and they will know what to do on 12th April.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The last occasion on which we listened to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) he put a ball through his own goal by talking about building in the green belt, and the embarrassment he caused his Chief Whip had to be seen to be believed. He has done it again tonight.
Taking first his rent comparisons, before I accepted his figures I would want to know, as I am sure he, too, would if he gave some more thought to the matter, the exact square footage of each of these properties. I would like to know their precise location in relation to each other and the age of each property. All these factors have to be weighed up. Each of us could make a comparison between two things where in fact no true relationship existed.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned motorways and I am glad that he did.
To draw off traffic from the residential areas and make them quieter and safer Labour is planning a motorway box round inner London and work is already going on to build sections of the east and west sides of it. These new roads are essential to the well being of us all.
That is a quotation from the Labour Party's GLC election campaign on 13th April 1967.
Listening tonight to what has been said about motorways by some hon. Members, one would never have thought that the whole concept of motorways was spawned by the Opposition when they controlled County Hall. I have always opposed the concept, but let it not be forgotten that they started it. Because there are cheap votes in it, they are now

trying to say, "We've changed our minds", but I do not propose to let them get away with that one.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the hon. Gentleman pleased that the Labour Party in London now agrees with him?

Mr. Finsberg: I am delighted when sinners repent. However, I do not have to believe in the sincerity of these particular sinners in their repentance.
I should like to return to the North Cross route which is a part of the possible addition to Ringway 1. I was anxious to find out the facts and I tabled a Question on this subject which was answered today. I am glad that the GLC has now made it clear that it is not discussing the North Cross route until Ringway I has been in operation. The council intends to let off on long leases properties which it already owns on the line of the North Cross route. I hope that that information will give the lie once and for all to those who say that, irrespective of need, the GLC intends to build the North Cross route. If the council intended to do so, it would not be letting its own properties on long leases on the route.
I come to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) who had the temerity to intervene in this debate. If he had understood anything about London he would not have tried to compare the figure of 4,000 GLC dwellings with many more which he said Manchester had built, because even the slightest intelligence would have told him that there are 32 other housing authorities in Greater London all engaged in building operations. I warned the hon. Gentleman that I intended to comment on his speech. The hon. Gentleman's own authority should be careful when it next presents a private Bill in this House. It must expect interventions which it does not like and can blame its Member of Parliament for starting it.
I return to the realities which most hon. Members who have taken part in this debate have had in mind. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) talked about poor housing in London and I do not think anybody would disagree with him on that point. It is an inheritance in which we all have a share. It is not right continually to harp on the fact that it is the GLC that


must bear all the responsibility. It was no use hon. Members laughing when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that 13 weeks of the best building weather was lost last year throughout the country because of the building strike. That argument was a very fair one and it should not be jeered at.
We must not forget that for 30 years or more the housing destinies of inner London were in the control of the Labour-controlled London County Council. Labour left a legacy with which they could not cope. I am not saying that it was possible for Labour to have coped with the problem, but I am saying that there is no purpose in trying to say that all the responsibility lies with the present GLC. One cannot solve that sort of problem in a decade.
Both the hon. Member for Brixton and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central criticised the management of GLC housing estates, and I join with them in that criticism. The management of the GLC housing estates is appalling, as was the management of the Labour-controlled Labour County Council and the management of the GLC when it was under Labour. The bodies involved have been too large. Equally, the management of the Tory-controlled Camden when I was its leader and also Labour-controlled Camden has been bad. None of these bodies seems able to understand how to deal with its tenants.
My criticism on this score goes right across the board. No local authority has yet found the secret of how to deal promptly with the management problem and tenants' complaints. This perhaps is criticism of local government in general. With respect to the hon. Member for Brixton, who thinks that he can solve the problem, I should like to hazard a guess that many of his hon. Friends who have had more experience of local government than he has will join me in telling him that the solution is not as easy as that. With the best will in the world, it is not easy. It is not merely a case of saying to Mrs. Bloggs, "You are a widow now. You do not want three rooms. I will find you a one-room flat". Nor can one say to Mr. Buggins in another street, "You have a one-room flat and would like three

rooms, so we can arrange a swap." The situation may be entirely different. Mr. Buggins' one room may be on the fourth floor with no lift. The problem cannot be solved as easily as that. We are deceiving people if we accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Brixton.
There is no purpose in confining criticism, in the way in which the hon. Members for Brixton and Hackney, Central did and putting the blame for bad management of housing on the Tory GLC. If both these hon. Members were fair and said that they were blaming the Greater London Council, whether Labour- or Tory-controlled, they would carry more credence, because the tenants know it. I speak as someone who served three years as a co-opted member on the Greater London Council Housing Committee some years ago. I was shocked at the lack of communication between that body and the tenant. This was not the fault of the councillors. The trouble was that the machine was so vast. It is run by officials and no-one, irrespective of party, has been able to get a grip on these officials.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a 35-minute speech which I enjoyed. I found it thought-provoking and I was not bored for a moment. What he said about dockland was fascinating. As another true Londoner I hope to see something coming to that area which will be a credit to London, but I do not think the solution for dockland is a programme which is either all municipal or all private. It has to be a mixture, with industry, commerce and housing of all kinds developed together to make it a living community. I made this comment during a debate on a London problem shortly before Christmas.
There is only one matter with which I disagree slightly with the hon. Member. I am sorry that he is not present, since I think that he would have admitted to having been slightly misleading, when he spoke of council rents in the area in which he lives being between £16 and £25 a week. The hon. Member would, I am sure, wish to be reasonable and would admit that these may be the rents which are assessed by local authorities but they are not necessarily the rents which tenants have to pay. Rent rebates


and the needs allowances have to be taken into account, after which the figures are very different. We can all quote rental figures fixed by local authorities but one has to work out the actual rent which the tenant pays.
This is a fascinating Bill. It runs to 24 printed pages, and I have looked at them all carefully. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central raised a very fair and valid point relating to Clause 12 and to the series of powers in Clauses 3-18. I wish to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) will say on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central regarding the power to arrest without warrant. This seems somewhat unusual, but there may be a good answer, and I would like to hear it. Clauses 19 and 20 deal with flood defence. Clause 21 deals with allowances to members of the Greater London Council.
The rest of the Bill has been promoted at the behest of the boroughs. I would like to see the face of Alderman Lou Sherman, chairman of the London Boroughs Association, if his friends in the House do not allow the Bill to pass. I can evisage the faces of hon. Members of the Opposition. How embarrassed they would be if the Bill containing legislation required by the Labour-controlled London Boroughs Association were not allowed through because of the annual fun-making exercise at the expense of the Greater London Council because it is Tory controlled. If I were in a different mood, I might be tempted to say, "Go ahead and defeat it." Many hon. Members of the Opposition would be taken to task by their management committees for doing that. They would find themselves in very hot water.
There is possibly only one hon. Member who should be acquitted of this charge. That is the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He always criticises the General Powers Bill or the Money Bill, but he always confines himself strictly to Thamesmead and a particular problem, so far as I have heard him on more than one occasion. He does this irrespective of which party controls the GLC.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: One of the reasons why it is so vital to have the opportunity of debating the Greater London Council (General

Powers) Bill is that both sides of the House refuse to allow proper parliamentary time for debates about London. Therefore, it is a duty, which will not be criticised by our constituents, that we seize all the opportunities which present themselves to ensure that the activities and welfare of the people of this great metropolis get at least some examination in the House.

Mr. Finsbcrg: That is a view which I warmly endorse. I have supported it in the past, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I think that there are more non-Scottish and non-Welsh hon. Members than there are Scottish and Welsh hon. Members. Therefore, it ought not to be impossible, bearing in mind the fact that most of them have to live in London for three or four nights a week, to ensure that on both sides of the House there is a ration of time to discuss London properly. We should not have to deal with it on a General Powers Bill or a money Bill. On this issue there is no division between us.
None the less, it is unfortunate, perhaps, that because of the timetable we have to debate the Bill a month or so before the GLC election and the London borough elections. The real purpose behind the debates is often obscured by some of the arguments I read when the debate started some 660 hours ago, before it was interrupted. It would be much better if we could find an alternative way of dealing with the matter. But we are stuck with it until enough pressure can be exerted.
The Bill contains many pet schemes which the London boroughs want. They want to improve the consumer advisory and protection service. Reference has not been made to Clause 34, but, very interestingly, they want to establish a development fund. This is, as it were, an extension of the old idea of a capital fund to be applied for different purposes. I like this idea. It is a good idea. I am certain that the London boroughs want this, as they want to protect users of self-service laundries and as they want to have further control of food premises and stalls.
This has been a useful opportunity of debating London problems, but it could be that in the excess of zeal of hon. Members of the Opposition to discuss


the Bill they may lose the Bill. They would be the people who would be in hot water, and not those of us on the Government side of the House.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: I start by taking up two of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). I mention particularly his reference to motorways in London and the suggestion that the Labour Party at County Hall, in changing its mind from its position in 1967, was taking an unprecedented decision. I take my stand as one who was a member in 1967. In the light of developments, it was necessary to have a reappraisal of the needs for motorways.
I find it surprising that hon. Gentlemen opposite should object to anybody reconsidering the situation, seeing that the present Government have reconsidered practically every policy on which they based their programme at the General Election and reversed it.
My view in 1967 was—it still is—that of Ringway 1, 2 and 3 the least acceptable is Ringway 1—the proposed motorway box. I have heard talk of Ringway 3, or part of Ringway 2, destroying the amenities of the outer London boroughs. I know that over the last 20 years South-wark's amenities have been destroyed by traffic which should never have been permitted to go through the centre of the capital, winding its way through side turnings which now lead to major roundabouts. Many quiet residential roads have lost all amenity value. If there is a case for a motorway system in London it is for a motorway which will divert that traffic before it finds its way through the centre of our city.
I cannot see any justification for proceeding with Ringway 1. The motorway box should have been the last alternative. If we were committed to ringways, we should first have considered the possibilities of Ringsways 3 and 2, to see if they could avoid the tremendous destruction of the inner area which will take place with the construction of the motorway box. The inner area has already had many of its amenities destroyed.
I should like to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead on the question of housing. Having served

on the Labour-controlled London County Council and the present Greater London Council, I cannot agree that there is no difference in the administration. Over the past six years at County Hall we have witnessed a disgraceful reduction in maintenance standards on GLC estates. The older types of estates, which should have been gutted and refurbished ages ago, have been allowed to run down at a faster rate because the GLC, under Conservative control, has deliberately cut the maintenance standards on its estates, and has failed to provide transfer opportunities for people living on these estates.
The caretaking and portering services are vital, and have always been maintained with a resident staff—at least, under the former London County Council and for the first three years under the Greater London Council. A great deal of deterioration has taken place not because of any deficiencies in the people who are employed in caretaking services but because they merely pay fleeting visits to estates. The damage from vandalism which has occurred as a result has certainly meant a tremendous deterioration in housing standards on GLC estates.
A former Conservative chairman of the Greater London Council boasted of his aim to relieve the council of housing responsibilities. A situation has now been created in which most tenants want to get out of GLC-controlled housing.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to the progress which had been made at County Hall since 1967. When I look at parts of my area for which the Greater London Council has had a special responsibility, I wonder what the hon. Gentleman means by "progress". If I look, for example, at the area between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge—which, unlike other areas in the borough, is not under the control of the Southwark council but which, because it is a comprehensive development area, is under the planning control of the Greater London Council—I see an area which, since the middle 1950s has been ready for redevelopment and which, as a result of the leases which have fallen in, has been over-ripe for redevelopment during the past six years. If the Greater London Council cannot get on with its task under the comprehensive development plan to see that this


vital area of London's riverside is refurbished it is time responsibility was passed back to Southwark, which is the planning authority.
Another area in which the hon. Member for Harrow, East may consider that there has been progress but which I consider to have reached an alarming state of affairs is the area designated for open space in North Camberwell. It was designated to provide 130 acres in the middle of 1950. Progress has been piecemeal, with a few houses being demolished and a little green area created. At the same time, all round the area the Southwark council has built three massive housing estates—the Heygate estate, the Ayles-bury estate and the North Peckham estate. The area in the centre of those three housing developments has become derelict. It requires some initiative and drive at County Hall to remedy the situation, and I was astounded to note the GLC's recent statement that it would take 30 years before the open space provision was fulfilled. It is a deplorable state of affairs, not only because the surrounding area needs an open space but because of the rundown of the housing in it. If it had been an ordinary clearance area, that housing would have been dealt with in the way in which the area all round it was—because the housing was all of the same vintage. Merely because it is designated as open space under the control of the GLC, instead of coming within the purview of the Southwark Council the area will continue with derelict housing in it and with people having to live in it for the next 30 years.
I want now to refer to those clauses which deal with piers and landing stages. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) concern about the use to which these piers and landing stages will be put. I have in mind especially the proposals to provide hovercraft and hydrofoil services, in the first place between Greenwich and Central London and ultimately between Erith and central London. I know that users of the river, especially sailing clubs and rowing clubs, feel considerable concern about the proposals, having seen the experiments which took place last year with the hydrofoil and the hovercraft. Their fear is that if a regular service is established hazards will be created which will considerably prejudice the existing usage

of the river, quite apart from the amenities and the environment.
There is great concern among many river users, and I trust that if we agree to the control of the piers passing to the GLC, the GLC will have discussions with river users to satisfy itself and the yachtsmen and rowing men that the hydrofoil and hovercraft services can be operated without prejudice to those using the river.
It is most important that we should take the opportunity which we have for opening up the river amenities and encourage far greater use of the river in future. I hope that we can be certain that the introduction of hovercraft and hydrofoil services on a regular commercial basis will not destroy the river amenities for other users.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I shall confine my remarks to the topics which most interest those who live and work in London—namely, homes, transport and jobs. It is useful to have this opportunity to examine some of these problems in perhaps greater detail than we normally have time to do during Question Time.
Housing is and will remain, at least until the end of the century, the biggest social problem facing London and Londoners. Unfortunately on this important subject the GLC appears to be contracting out of its responsibilities to the people of London. Admittedly the 32 London boroughs have responsibilities themselves, but unless there is an overall authority—and the only elected authority covering the whole of London is the GLC—which can work with the London boroughs and get them to co-operate with each other, we shall never begin to tackle the very serious problems of homelessness and bad homes in London.
The Borough Council of Waltham Forest has a waiting list of 6,500 people. It is unlikely that many of those people will be rehoused this century. That is not because the borough council is unwilling to help them but because there is a severe shortage of land. That problem is not confined to the inner London boroughs because Waltham Forest is one of the stress areas in the outer London boroughs.
The GLC could help if it wanted to do so not only by building more homes but by bringing the borough councils together and insisting that the outer London boroughs which have land which could be developed should make that land available for the London boroughs with large housing waiting lists. That would be a speedy way in which the London housing problem could be tackled.
The problem of homelessness in Greater London is increasing. At the moment that is basically a problem for the London boroughs to tackle separately. As the recent Shelter report showed graphically and conclusively, many homeless people are being shoved from one local authority to another. The GLC could help by taking upon itself the responsibility of ensuring that the London boroughs do not evade their responsibilities for homeless-ness.
We have an organisation called the London Housing Group. That was set up by the Government. That group, by and large, is merely a window dressing exercise. It is not having very much effect on making more land available for housing homeless people and those families on waiting lists.
I turn to the problem of transport. The emphasis in the debate has been on motorways, but there is another side to transport in London that affects far more people than are likely to be affected by motorways. I refer to the problem of public transport. We have the absurd situation that there are two authorities for public transport in London—the London Transport Executive, controlled by the GLC. and British Rail.
The liaison between the two is pretty awful. For example, in North London there are two lines, the North London line and the Barking-Kentish Town line. The lines are subsidised and are under threat of closure because not many people use them. They could serve a useful purpose if their services were more widely known to the people of North London, but because they come under British Rail their existence is not made known to the people of London on all the maps showing the underground system, for example. If we had a co-ordinated transport authority under the GLC, whatever its political complexion, we should be able to make

much greater use of the railway lines, linking them with the underground system at various points.
But public transport will never pay in a large conurbation such as London. It will always need some form of public subsidy. We think, certainly on the Labour side, that the GLC should adopt that policy towards London Transport, but it is reluctant to do so. I do not go as far as to say at this stage that we should go all out for a free public transport system. But I think that ultimately it will be the only way to achieve a rational transport system in Greater London as between private and public transport, though we have not got there yet.
At least we could improve the quality and level of the services of public transport by spending a little more money on them. I refer particularly to bus routes. Some of the services are very poor during the rush hour, and constituents of mine and, I am sure, of many other hon. Members on both sides, are extremely inconvenienced by them. But our constituents do not want to go to the lengths of using their cars or buying cars, because that adds to the congestion on the roads.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend will agree that the GLC's edict to the London Transport Executive that it had to make a £2 million operating profit each year made it inevitable that bus routes in his area would be cut.

Mr. Deakins: I entirely agree. I hope that after 12th April we shall have a new GLC committed to the principle that public transport cannot always be run at a profit, and that the first priority must be to improve the quality of the service and get passengers back on to it. Everything follows from that.
My third point concerns jobs, a matter in which the GLC does not have direct responsibility. It is very much a matter for the Government. Many of us on both sides of the House have shown in recent months our increasing concern about the decline of manufacturing employment in the Greater London area—North, South, East and West. The decline over the past 10 years is well documented. We have lost several hundred thousands of jobs.
It is all very well for the Government to say that we are still the biggest manufacturing centre in the country. We cannot go on with the declining trend ofmanufacturing employment. The creation of new jobs in the regions should not be at the expense of jobs in London. They should be genuinely additional new jobs, because London needs a balanced employment situation.
It is horrifying to look forward perhaps 10 or 20 years to a time when manufacturing industry in London will have shrunk to such an extent that the bulk of our people will be employed in offices, hotels, or warehouses—the service industries. We have the skills in London. We have many skilled people and in many cases are not making good use of them. That is a drain on the national economy. Therefore, the GLC, preferably under new management, should take a much firmer line in London on the loss of jobs and take its responsibilities in this respect more seriously. If it does not have appropriate powers it should come forward at some point in the near future with another Bill which would give it powers—which I am sure it needs—to improve the job situation in London.
That is why I hope we are to get a change on 12th April—for three very good reasons. We need a GLC which will take seriously the problem of providing houses, will take seriously the problem of providing better transport and will take seriously the absurd and dreadful decline in manufacturing employment in Greater London.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Christopher Tugendhat) has said, I have been asked to say a few words on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. It is difficult to know quite what words to say, since we have covered so much ground. I take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) who talked of the form of the debate. I, like many others, hope—I am not saying this in any way as a spokesman; it is my own personal view —that we will have an annual London debate. The device of using this Bill is profoundly unsatisfactory. We do not get good debates in this way. Hon. Mem-

bers on both sides of the House should tell the Government, "We will stop using the GLC (General Powers) Bill"—and I suppose the money Bill would have to come in, too—"in exchange for a debate in Government time." We can reasonably ask for this as a completely non-party affair, and I hope we will do so.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) did not speak in the debate, but he intervened to good effect. He asked about proposals for the barrier and for flood defences. The design work is proceeding according to programme. It is hoped to invite tenders for certain works on the barrier in June of this year, and the contractors will start work in February 1974, which I think is good progress. The council believes that its existing powers are adequate. The interim defences upstream of the barrier are complete. Of those downstream, tenders for one mile of river were met last October, and tenders for the remaining 13½ miles of river will go ahead soon and should be finished before the barrier is built. I hope it will be felt that those are very satisfactory replies.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) asked why the GLC was not included in the proposals for a development fund. The proposal for development funds for boroughs was widely welcomed by both sides of the House. The answer is very simple. The GLC believes it has the financial resources which individual boroughs have not to carry out the kind of activities which would be carried out by boroughs under a development fund. The GLC simply does not feel that it needs additional powers, because of its very much greater financial resources. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) raised the matter of Clause 12 and asked me for a display of forensic ability.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I wanted the hon. Gentleman to enter into a self-denying ordinance in that regard, and not to display his forensic ability but to give me an assurance.

Mr. Worsley: I am delighted to hear that, because the hon. Gentleman would not get a display of forensic ability from me. I have taken advice and, rather than attempt to follow him in the details of what he said—he is a solicitor and


I am not a lawyer of any kind—I tell him that the promoters accept that issues of human rights are overriding. They give the undertaking that they will re-examine Clause 12 in the light of criticisms made in the debate and will take further advice in the matter in order to consider whether the principles of English justice require any amendment to the clause. Should that prove to be the case they will move the necessary amendment in Committee. They cannot commit themselves to making any particular change or, indeed, any change at this stage, since that would obviously prejudice the re-examination. I hope that that meets the wishes of the House in that matter.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am bound to say that I am disappointed in that reply, because the promoters have had since 6th March, when I first raised this point, to consider the matter, and to take advice. Evidently they have not taken it sufficiently seriously to do so. I am not happy with that assurance because it can mean everything and nothing. I asked the hon. Member to reconsider his undertaking to withdraw the clause altogether.

Mr. Worsley: The hon. Member asked me in his speech earlier either to emasculate or to withdraw the clause. I cannot give him that assurance. I do not think it is reasonable to ask me to do so. He is not the only hon. Member who expressed doubt about the clause. I believe that I have made a reasonable statement that the matter will be looked at carefully. These matters are complicated and the hon. Member, being a solicitor, knows that better than I. For me to make a wider statement would be extremely unwise. I hope he will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is meant and I hope that the House will do so, too.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made an interesting speech and, like some of the most effective partisan speeches, it was totally non-partisan. He spoke principally about the docks. I am not as familiar with the dockland area but I was impressed by what he said. He will know that some months ago the Department of the Environment and the Greater London Council jointly sponsored a study into the

docks. That has now been published and those two bodies, and the five London boroughs involved in the area, wish to promote a public debate into the matter.
For instance a free pamphlet will be issued describing the suggestions and the ideas that have been produced by the study. An information office will be set up in each of the London boroughs concerned. The intention is that rather than the GLC, the Government or both issuing a diktat about what should be done to meet the tremendous opportunity which the hon. Member rightly described, there should be a free-ranging and wide public debate based on the ideas put forward. That is exactly the right way to approach the issue and I support the view of those who believe that there is an opportunity here which has not been vouched safe to us in London since, perhaps, the Great Fire.
The hon. Members who talked about the problems of the river were quite right. The barrier will enable us to use the river as it should be used. I never tire of telling people that a fish has been caught off Chelsea, because when this happens there must be hope for the Thames. [Interruption.] It was not that big.

Mr. Hamling: A red herring?

Mr. Worsley: I suspect that it was a coarse fish. The point is that the river is London's greatest wasted asset and we must learn to use it better.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) asked whether the GLC would consult before using its new powers. The answer is "Yes." My only criticism of the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West was that he succeeded —and I thought that was an achievement—in talking about the level of rents without mentioning rent allowances or rebates. If the hon. Member had been considering the matter in a totally non-partisan way, as he claimed he was, he would have given the Government credit for the fact that in so many of these stress areas, where the problem affects privately-rented houses, the Government's rent allowances are proving enormously helpful. I merely add that little gloss to the hon. Member's speech.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) referred to three principal themes—employment, transport


and housing. I do not want to say anything about employment, which is wide of the Bill. It is a problem which goes far wider than the area of responsibility of the GLC, but in taking that view I do not mean to imply that it is unimportant.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West referred to the length of journeys to work, which is a relevant point. I consider the point as a central London Member, and one of my great desires is to ensure that people can continue to live and work in central London. This relates to service industries, but it is important both from the point of view of transport and the quality of life that people should be able to live in central London. The rent allowance system has done more to help in that direction than any other Government action in recent years.

Mr. Handing: Does the hon. Member not realise that the rent increases that have taken place and are contemplated far outweigh any benefit which might be derived from rent allowances?

Mr. Worsley: My simple answer to the hon. Member is "No". I leave it at that.
On transport, I made it clear in the debate we had that I was pro-GLC. I underline once more that the GLC believes in the vital necessity of improved public transport in London. There is no dispute about that. At present it is spending three times as much on public transport as on roads. That illustrates its order of priorities. It is giving substantial grants—matched by the Department of the Environment—to public transport. It is not true to say that the GLC does not put transport at the top of its priorities. There are signs of an improvement following from its policy.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) spoke a lot about the GLC selling off council housing. He appeared to think that by selling houses it has somehow failed to help solve the housing problem. We could argue all night whether or not council houses should be sold. The hon. Member believes that the council house element in a community should be considerably increased. We believe that a large part of it should move back into private ownership. We have public opinion on our side in that respect. The hon. Member must realise that the

GLC sells houses only to GLC tenants, to borough tenants or to people whom they have a statutory duty to rehouse. These are people displaced as a result of road or school developments. Irrespective of whether the individual is buying his own house there is no housing loss for the GLC or any borough.

Mr. Hamling: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the GLC, in so far as it is selling houses and not flats, is considerably reducing the stock of houses it has to let, as against flats?

Mr. Worsley: I do not believe that to be true. Given the facts about the people to whom these houses are going, it follows that as they move out of present accommodation into other accommodation the initial accommodation is then available. The hon. Gentleman will be happy to know that his constituent has been offered a house.
Many hon. Members have tried to build up a great bogy about the GLC being unwilling to build in the outer boroughs. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central even said that a dirty deal—he did not use that phrase—had been done at Kingston. He said that it had been agreed that there should be no GLC building in exchange for 1 per cent. nominations. I make it clear that there is no deal with Kingston. There have been discussions but there is no agreement and there is no question of the GLC agreeing to nominations at anything like so low a figure.
In Hillingdon, under successive parties, the GLC nomination has been 25 per cent., and that has worked extremely well. Bromley has been mentioned. It was said that no GLC building was going on there. Tenders are in for 230 dwellings, with 250 more to follow. The Bromley council has promised 1,000 nominations over five years. It is important that these facts should be known, to show that the GLC is co-operating with the outer London boroughs in solving London's housing problem. Unless there is that co-operation there can be no solution.
When the Opposition scratches around like this for arguments they are showing just how arid they can be. I hope that the Bill will have the support of the House. It is promoted not only by the GLC but by the London boroughs


With a few exceptions there has been little real disagreement about the details.

Mr. Tugendhat: Mr. Tugendhat rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause

EXTENSION OF POWER TO REFER PROCEEDINGS OR QUESTIONS ARISING IN PROCEEDINGS IN COUNTY COURTS TO ARBITRATION OR FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT

' .—(1) In section 92 of the County Courts Act 1959 (which enables the judge, but not the registrar, of the court to refer proceedings to arbitration with the consent of the parties) there shall be made the following amendments—

(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following—

"(1) A county court may, with the consent of the parties to any proceedings, order the proceedings to be referred to arbitration (whether with or without other matters within the jurisdiction of the court in dispute between the parties) to such person or persons (including the judge or registrar) and in such manner and on such terms as the court thinks just and reasonable."; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the word "judge" there shall be substituted the word "court".

(2) In section 93 of that Act (which enables the judge to refer proceedings or questions arising in proceedings for inquiry and report) there shall be made the following amendments—

(a) in subsection (1), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "and, in such cases as may be prescribed by and subject to county court rules, the registrar may refer to a referee for inquiry and report any question arising in any proceedings."; and
(b) in subsection (2), after the word "judge", there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the registrar".'.— [The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important Government proposal. It fits in with the philosophy that has arisen over past years in respect of small claims courts. The main object of the new clause is to enable the Rule Committee to authorise the registrar—not only, as at present, the judge—to refer county court proceedings to arbitration and to make it clear that the arbitrator

may be the judge or registrar making the reference. The new clause would also enable the registrar to refer any question arising in any proceedings to a referee for inquiry and report. This could be done by substituting for Section 92(1) of the County Courts Act 1959 a new sub-section in the terms set out in the new clause amendment.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

The Solicitor-General: It means that by substituting the phrase "A county court" for "The judge" the registrar also will now have the power to refer proceedings to arbitration in such cases as the Rule Committee may prescribe. The result of this is that it will be open to the Rule Committee to delegate to the registrar the power to refer proceedings to arbitration either in certain cases or in certain categories of cases, as it may decide. An example of this would be those cases with a consumer element, such as cases arising out of the sale or hire of goods or the supply of services. As was pointed out in The Times in its leading article of 19th March, there are many disputes in which the amounts involved are small which do not arise from trading but would be susceptible to the kind of arbitration which was then being considered, such as a dispute, for example, over a motor car damaged in an accident where the amount involved was too low to warrant a claim from the insurance company. It may be that the appropriate figure for this type of work will be £75, which is the current limit of the registrar's jurisdiction, but this, no doubt, is a matter better left to the Rule Committee, which will be able to take into account the way in which the scheme is working before deciding whether to extend or narrow it.
It has the important advantage that it will enable provision to be made for a consumer arbitration service within the framework of the existing county court system, unlike the earlier proposals, which


sought to set up a parallel system. It will be possible, for example, for rules to be made to provide that when a case comes before the registrar for what is known as a "pre-trial review" he can refer the proceedings either to himself or, if necessary, to the judge or to some other suitably qualified person who would sit as an arbitrator.
This will have the advantage—and we think it a very important advantage— that the case can then be disposed of more informally than if it were tried by the judge or registrar sitting in his ordinary court. It would be unnecessary to insist on a hearing in public or on formal pleadings, or upon the rigid application of the rules of evidence, or even the ordinary procedure adopted at the trial of an ordinary action. An award of a registrar sitting as an arbitrator, for example, could be entered as the judgment in the action and the successful party would be able to enforce it without having to bring fresh proceedings on it. It will have a great future here because in the smaller cases it will enable the court to order that these should be dealt with by arbitration without the formalities that would follow if the case remained in the registrar's or judge's court.
There is an amendment down by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in which he suggests that this power should obtain not only where the consent of both parties exists. The amendment he intends to move, and which I can tell the House now that we accept, takes away the need for the consent of the parties in this sort of case and substitutes
in such cases as may be prescribed".
The prescribed cases would be those prescribed in the rules. Ordinarily one might hesitate before removing the right to trial of a case by a judge or registrar but, since the whole philosophy of this amendment is to speed up and simplify the cases in this sort of category, it has been decided by the Government that this amendment is a sensible one and would be acceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Before the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) rises, I should say that he will be called

upon in due course formally to move his amendment.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not quite clear what is the procedure for dealing with my amendment. No doubt it would be for the convenience of the House if I did not make a separate speech on the amendment but dealt with it in the course of the few remarks I have to make on new Clause 1.
New Clause 1 is a move in the direction of what has been called the small claims court but within the ambit of our existing county court system. So far as it goes, the Opposition welcome it. The question that is raised by the pressure in favour of a new court, by whatever name it be known, arises from the fact that many people are frightened of courts of any kind. People who are unwilling to take their disputes to the court, whether out of fear of the costs they may incur or for other reasons, are not likely to be persuaded to do so by this provision. One has to go a great deal further to get the general public acclimatised to the idea of referring small matters to a court.
I hope that in the future we shall concentrate particularly on that aspect of the matter and that, valuable as the changes in the procedure of the existing system may be, we shall not lose sight of the fact that they will not go very far unless and until the public are prepared to accept the local court in exactly the same way as they accept the local doctor, and we have not yet reached that stage.
If we are to make the best of the new proposals which appear in new Clause 1, it is essential that the court should have the power to operate these new provisions even where one party to the dispute is unwilling to do so. If the court does not have the power to operate these provisions in the absence of the consent of one of the parties, one can reasonably expect that in a great many cases the consumer will be the person who wishes to operate the procedure but the other party—whether it be a shopkeeper, a person who has sold a motor car, or someone who may have caused damage to property in the course


of cleaning and repair—is extremely unlikely to wish to take full advantage of the procedure because of his greater means of making use of legal advice and assistance. If that situation is permitted, undoubtedly the purpose of the new clause will in many cases be frustrated and such good as I accept it will do will be very much lessened.
With that in mind I tabled two amendments. The second was in a form of words I understood to be acceptable to the Government, but I am very happy to accept the Government adviser's drafting rather than my own.
The effect of amendment (b) will be to enable the court, the registrar in many cases, in the sort of case where the authorities may prescribe, to proceed with the new powers under the clause even if one of the parties does not consent to their use. I was happy to hear the Solicitor-General confirm that the Government regard that as a useful amendment and that it will not be opposed.
In those circumstances, following your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will in due course formally move amendment (b), but for the moment I welcome the new clause in principle.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I wish to intervene briefly to accord a very lukewarm welcome to the new clause which has come about to some extent as a result of some of the debates in the proceedings of a Standing Committee upstairs. I wish that I could feel that the new clause will be more effective in bringing about a small claims procedure for consumers in this country, and more particularly for the less articulate and literate consumers, than I believe it will in fact prove to be.
As the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. C. S. Silkin) said, many consumers are intimidated by the formalities of the courts and, dare I say it, some of them are even intimidated by the legal profession.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Oh, come, come!

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am not saying that they are justifiably intimidated. The fact remains that some of them are.
In the context of this clause, I welcome the fact that through the £25 scheme many more people who would not other-

wise find legal advice as accessible as it will now be to them may be drawn towards the county courts.
As I understand the new clause—and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I am wrong—the case must first have arisen in the county court before it can go to arbitration. In that case once again there will be a disincentive for the small consumer with a very small claim to bring his case to the county court.
I also add my support to the amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich and express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for its acceptance.
I look upon this as a halting first step. I shall be delighted if it proves more effective than I expect and, if it does not, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to look at the question again later.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I also welcome the new clause with the reservation which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim)—that is to say, that it may prove to be a disappointment to those who are deterred from going to the formal legal institutions, solicitors offices and county courts, to pursue their claims.
I am therefore somewhat reassured by my understanding of the operation of the clause if it means that by going to the county court it would be possible for proceedings to be transferred to some central point—perhaps to a civic advice centre in a shopping centre of a town— where arbitration can take place. I refer to a place which is easily available and accessible to members of the public and which can normally be regarded as a small claims court—not only for the purposes of complaints by shoppers, but the sort of place which is occupied by consumer advice centres in other respects. If that is the way the clause will operate, then we need not worry too much about its effect.
I have a reservation to make about amendment (b) proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). It seems to me that the essence of justice is impartiality, and what is sought by his amendment is to compel


both parties to a dispute to accept the jurisdiction of a court or arbitration at a low level. It may be that the trader or manufacturer involved in the dispute has at issue a point of law which involves an important point of principle for the trader but which may not appear to be important to the consumer. It might be unjust for that trader to be compelled to accept jurisdiction at a low level. Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General to go very carefully before he makes it obligatory on such people to accept a low level of jurisdiction.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that a case involving an important principle, whether on a matter of law or a complex factual issue, would be the sort of matter which would not be referred to arbitration if the importance of the point was made clear to the registrar. That would be the sort of case where it was essential for both sides to be legally represented and to have the best possible tribunal.

Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that point, and can only express the hope that provision will be made in the rules so that it is taken into account by the registrar or the county court judge for appropriate provisions to be made. However, I see danger in saying that there must be compulsion in requiring both parties to submit to a low level of jurisdiction.

The Solicitor-General: I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to be under any illusion. I must tell him that there will not be an arbitration shop in the high street. The clause seeks to encourage informality on the occasion when the registrar is examining a case on the pre-trial review. He may then invite the parties—or in the right circumstances may tell the parties—that the matter will be referred to arbitration. He will usually act as the arbitrator, or in certain cases a skilled accountant might be required to act as arbitrator. He will then deal with the matter himself ordinarily, if not on the spot, at very short notice, with a great deal less formality, but almost certainly using either his room or his court. But I do not want anyone to feel that there will be a special small claims court set up in the high street where people can wander in and get

"instant justice" simply by ringing the bell. That is not what is intended by the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made: In line 5, leave out
'with the consent of the parties to any proceedings, order the'

and insert:
'in such cases as may be prescribed, order any'.—[Mr. S. C. Silkin.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 2

PENSIONS OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES IN NORTHERN IRELAND

'(1) In the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 the definition of "retiring salary" in section 22(1) shall be amended by omitting the word "average" and by substituting for the words "during the three years immediately preceding the date of his retirement" the words "immediately before his retirement".
(2) This section shall not affect any pension or other benefit payable to or in respect of a person who retired or died before the coming into force of this section.
(3) For the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 this section shall be deemed to have been passed before the appointed day within the meaning of that section '.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
If it is convenient for the House, perhaps we may discuss at the same time Amendment No. 15, in Clause 19, page 17, line 18, leave out 'and 16' and insert
'16 and "pensions of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland"'.
This new clause is intended to amend the definition of "retiring salary" contained in Section 22(1) of the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, so as to provide that this expression means the salary in payment immediately prior to retirement. At present "retiring salary" is defined under that Act as meaning the average of the last three years of service.
Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the definition into line with that applied to stipendiary magistrates in England and Wales since 1960 by virtue of the


Administration of Justice (Judge and Pensions) Act of that year.
Subsection (2) is self-explanatory, and ensures that existing pensions will not be affected. Subsection (3) is the formality which is required to comply with the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.
I am sure that the House will agree that the same provision for pensions should apply throughout the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 3

PROVISION OF STATEMENTS IN CRIMINAL CASES

'(1) In criminal cases where on summary conviction the defendant shall be liable to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months, the prosecutor shall if required by the defence, as soon as reasonably practicable, supply the defence with copies of all statements relevant to the case taken from witnesses whom it is proposed to call or to tender to give evidence.
(2) If a defendant is not represented by counsel or a solicitor the Court shall inform him of his right to be supplied with copies of statements as set out in subsection (1) hereof.
(3) Where the prosecutor has in his possession statements relevant to the case, taken from persons whom it is not proposed to call or to tender to give evidence, copies of all such statements shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, be supplied to the defence.
(4) The prosecution shall be entitled not withstanding the relevancy of any statement, to refuse to supply copies or to permit inspection of the statement or parts of it, on the ground that it would be contrary to public policy so to do. In such a case, however, the objection shall be notified to the defence in writing. If the defence does not accept the validity of such objection the Court or judge shall rule thereon. In deciding upon the validity of such objection the Court or judge shall not be bound to disclose the contents of such statement to the defence'.—[Mr. S. Clinton Davis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. S. Clinton Davis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause is designed to cover the following points—first, the desirability in certain cases which are tried summarily of the prosecution tendering to the

defence, in advance of the hearing, statements on which the prosecution intends to rely; second, the desirability, in the interests of justice, of the prosecution tendering to the defence of copy of a statement of a prosecution witness which is materially at variance with his testimony; third, the desirability, in the interests of justice, of the prosecution tendering to the defence a copy of a statement by a witness whom it is not proposed to call. These views have been expressed very forcibly by Justice and I believe that there is a great deal to commend them.
Subsection (1) is limited to the duty to provide statements, first, if they are required by the defence, and second, only in cases which carry a sentence in excess of three months. It would be folly to have every trifling case dealt with in this way. Certainly, one would not want people who are charged with being drunk in the street, for example, to have recourse to this system.
This procedure would have a number of advantages. We are frequently told by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General that, in too many cases which could be tried summarily, a defendant elects to go for trial. Thereby there is caused a coagulation of the lists of the Crown Courts, delay and undue expense.
The reason for this is that frequently the defence does not know the case which it has to meet when a defendant appears in a magistrates' court and the prosecution all too often refuses to give any indication of its evidence beforehand. This is particularly true of the case where a police officer is prosecuting and feels, perhaps, a natural reticence because he feels that it may not be proper to divulge to the defence the nature of the prosecution case and, indeed, the details of it. This is a situation which occurs even where the prosecution is represented. Secondly, there are many people for whom a conviction, even in a relatively minor case of dishonesty, could have a devastating effect upon their future. This situation has to be remembered in that context.
If this procedure were followed, because the defence would know what the situation was, it would result, first, in many more pleas of guilty. Secondly, there would be fewer cases where an


election would be adopted by the defence. I cannot see any distinction between the proposal which I am enunciating here and the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act which enable the defence, in cases which go for trial, to have the prosecution statements in advance of the hearing. That particular section of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 has worked extremely well concerning commitals. I see no good reason why in these more serious summary cases a similar situation could not prove of advantage to courts, to the accused, to witnesses and to the advocates.
The opposition to this proposal—this is by no means the first time that it has been raised—would probably be to argue first that there might be some delay. That is not a weighty consideration, because the prosecution's statements are invariably available to the prosecutor in any event before they appear in court, and it would not be very much more difficult to ensure that the formalities which are outlined by the Criminal Justice Act could be readily complied with. There is infinitely more delay and expense involved if an unnecessary election is forced upon an accused person.
A second argument that might be adduced against it is that a witness might regard the implementation of this rule as a deterrent against making a statement to the police. But that is not a very weighty argument either, because most witnesses in prosecutions realise that they might have to give evidence in any event. Although that argument has been adduced in the past, I hope that the Solicitor-General will not seek to rely upon it, because it is somewhat unworthy.
Subsection (2) seeks to protect the unrepresented defendant. It speaks for itself that if a defendant is not represented by counsel or by a solicitor, the court usually informs him of his right to be supplied with copies of statements, as set out in subsection (1).
Subsection (3) deals with the second and third points which I sought to adumbrate at the beginning of my speech. Sensible prosecutors will supply the defence with statements of prosecution witnesses which are materially at variance with the testimony of the accused person, but the law is not specific.
It is spelt out at paragraph 1374 of the current edition of Archbold that there have been cases where, in view of their particular circumstances, judges have ordered the prosecution to hand to the defence statements made to the police by witnesses for the prosecution. Two cases are cited, those of Hall and Xinaris.
Archbold states:
In both these last-mentioned cases it is clear that the judge adopted the course only in the circumstances of the particular case, and neither case should be regarded as an authority for the proposition that there is any general duty on the part of the prosecution with regard to statements to the police by witnesses or potential witnesses beyond what is above stated.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Denning, in Dallison v. Caffery, reported in 1964 2 All England Law Reports, went further and said:
The duty of a prosecuting counsel or solicitor, as I have always understood it, is this: if he knows of a creditable witness who can speak to material facts which tend to show the prisoner to be innocent, he must either call that witness himself or make his statement available to the defence.
I believe that the proposed new clause will make the duty of the prosecution plain and specific. It would be fair and just. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it acceptable.
The new clause also meets the position where the prosecution has statements which it does not intend to use. Lord Goddard, in the case of Bryant and Dickson, reported in 31 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 151, said:
It is said that it was the duty of the prosecution to have supplied the defence with the statement which Campbell had admittedly made to the prosecution. In the opinion of the court there is no such duty, nor has there ever been … the duty of the prosecution is to make available to the defence a witness whom the prosecution know can, if he is called, give material evidence.
It would seem that the words used by the former Lord Chief Justice, "make available", merely mean to give the name and address of the witness. This is quite unjust. It can have monstrous consequences. Indeed, a case was cited to the Justice Committee, which investigated this matter, where the prosecution refused to divulge any information about 38 witnesses who were not called until after conviction. Statements were refused although an appeal had been


launched on the ground that the witnesses could give no material evidence to the defence. So the defence was put to the enormous trouble and expense of locating the witnesses, the vast majority of whom refused to make any further statements on the ground that they had already assisted the police. Why should the prosecution be the judge whether a witness can help the defence?
Subsection (4) provides safeguards for the prosecution, coupled with the proviso that the judge should be the final arbiter where the prosecution refuses to supply statements on the ground that it would be contrary to public policy to do so— for example, so that informers should not be prejudiced on the ground of public policy where the judge thought it appropriate to invoke that proviso. Obviously it would not be in the interests of the public for certain methods used by the "underworld" relating to forgery or other crimes to be disclosed where this proviso is invoked, and similarly where matters of great confidentiality between the public and the police have to be protected.
I believe that subsection (4) would introduce into the administration of our criminal law a system of fairness to both parties. It would have the effect of cutting out a great deal of delay and expense which is necessarily involved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept not perhaps the precise wording —I do not claim to be an expert drafts-man—but the principle in the new clause.

Mr. Grieve: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) for having again brought this matter before the House in the form of a new clause. It was raised on Second Reading, and I was happy then to give the hon. Gentleman my support in principle with regard to the furnishing of statements in cases coming before the magistrates' courts.
Had the clause comprised merely subsections (1) and (2), it would have had my unreserved support. But I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman in supporting subsection (3), even with the reservation contained in subsection (4). But as regards subsections (1) and (2), the argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman and the facts on which it is based are irrefutable.
The truth is that when a case of any importance and gravity comes before magistrates the only way in which those who are defending the accused can be assured that they know the case against him is to opt to go for trial. At present in a case before magistrates, if the accused elects for summary trial his advisers and he do not know the case which is to be deployed against him. This is one cause of the overcrowding of the higher courts, and the fact that vast numbers of cases are committed for trial on indictment at the instance of the accused, thereby clogging up the works of the Crown Court, is in no small measure because without opting for trial by jury the accused and those advising him cannot know the nature of the case against him.
That by itself would be quite sufficient ground for supporting subsections (1) and (2) but, as we all know, the matter goes much further. It is elementary fairness in the administration of justice that the accused, in whatever court he should be tried, should know the case against him. We recognise this on trial on indictment because the statements of witnesses which are to be used are all made known in advance. At one time, the Crown had to go through the procedure of calling the witnesses in person before the justices on committal. It was only by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that that was ended and we were enabled to have the shorter procedure of serving statements before the magistrates and on the accused so that there could be committal for trial.
When a man goes before justices none of this is gone through. He goes down, his advisers go down, and he does not know what the case is to be. His legal advisers are in no position to tell him, as they can frequently when a case is tried on indictment, that the case against him is overwhelming and that he will do much better to plead guilty. Perhaps they hear from him a garbled, one-sided, coloured, emotive version of what took place, and they are in no position to advise him. Frequently in circumstances of that kind the prosecution springs on the legal advisers and possibly even the accused matters of complete surprise.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central was kind—perhaps overkind—to some police prosecutors in suggesting that it


was perhaps through fear of doing something which they thought was exceeding their functions that they would not give statements to the defence. I am not at all sure that in many cases they are not very glad to keep the cards close to their chests. Looking back to the days after the war when I returned to the Bar and frequently defended in magistrates' courts, I remember that I was met all too often by police prosecutors who said, "I cannot possibly show you the statements of witnesses" and who reserved them. Frequently to have done so would have shortened proceedings, made them less costly and redounded to the advantage of the administration of justice.
I do not deploy any argument from personal experience, but there may be all sorts of reasons why at the moment police prosecutors may not feel disposed to let the defence see the statements of witnesses whom they intend to call in summary proceedings.
I am bound to say that there can be no good reason. Therefore, subsections (1) and (2) of new Clause 3 have my unreserved support. I believe that they would have the unreserved support of all who are interested in the administration of justice, both from the point of view of justice and from the point of view of speedy administration. They will lead, when they pass into law, to many cases being tried before magistrates' courts instead of going for trial.
I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central on subsection (3). The present practice, which has the support and authority of the judges, as the hon. Gentleman showed in the extracts which he read from Archbold and from Lord Chief Justice Goddard, is that there is an obligation on the prosecution to give the names and addresses of witnesses who may be relevant and whom the prosecution do not intend to call. That is sufficient for the purpose of the administration of justice. It is not for the prosecution to do the work of the defence.
It is my experience, when justice demanded that a statement should be served on the defence, that prosecuting counsel are never reluctant to give their learned friends the benefit of a sight of that statement. Therefore, subsection (3)

is not necessary and subsection (4) is otiose. I hope very much that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to give the House an assurance—I look for nothing else—that the Government will concede that henceforth in the magistrates' courts defendants will be entitled in advance to a sight of the statements of the witnesses who are to be called against them.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central. I shall not go over the ground which has alrealy been covered. We must consider the reality of the criminal in the magistrates' courts. Most criminals in those courts—criminals is the wrong term to use—or persons charged tend to be less than articulate. They are not always able to describe the circumstances in which an alleged offence was committed, just as they are not always able to tell a hard-pressed solicitor of the circumstances which would help their mitigation.
The reality of the situation is that counsel in the high courts rely heavily on social inquiry reports. They rely on those reports more than they rely on instructions from their solicitor to discover the background of the accused's private circumstances and history. Equally, counsel rely heavily, as do solicitors, on statements provided to them which give details about the circumstances of the offence.
10.45 p.m.
What is lacking in the magistrates' courts, particularly when a man pleads guilty, is that the solicitor often does not have the prosecution's statements which give details about the offence. Those statements often include valuable matters in mitigation. If a defending solicitor does not see those statements he is not able to put forward relevant matters in mitigation. He is wholly in the hands of the prosecuting solicitor, who, if he misses an important matter or if he does not bring it out fully, might inadvertently put the defendant at a disadvantage. That is the situation in the higher courts when a committal for sentence with a view to borstal training is considered, when statements are not usually provided. We find there that both the court and counsel are at a disadvantage in dealing with the circumstances of an offence because there are


no statements before the court dealing with those circumstances.
It has always seemed to me—and I am not alone in this view—that committals for sentence suffer badly because there are normally no statements dealing with the prosecution case. If that applies in the higher courts it must equally apply in the lower courts. Therefore, for the purposes of a decent examination of mitigating circumstances the prosecution statements would be helpful to the defence. The lack of ability of the accused to explain fully the situation makes that a useful precaution. That is why I support my hon. Friend.
In his subsection (3) my hon. Friend phrases his proposed reform far too widely, because an obligation is there laid upon the prosecution to supply all relevant statements, even though the statements put before the court may cover the points made by additional potential witnesses whom the prosecution decided not to call.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Subsections (1) and (2) are so fundamental that I should be prepared to give way on subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (4) depends on subsection (3) anyway. I do not accept the arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and by my hon. Friend. It is obvious that subsections (1) and (2) are so much more fundamental.

Mr. Lyons: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He must not assume that I am making the same argument about subsection (3) as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull was making. In the higher courts it is common practice to supply the names and addresses, and often the statements of witnesses who have made statements contrary to the statements of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution rely, or who will give evidence on matters germane to the case which are not dealt with in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses whose statements have been tendered. That is a thoroughly desirable practice. I have a feeling that it is not followed in the magistrates' courts.
The advantage of subsection (3) is that for the first time it makes an attempt, albeit in rather wide terms, to give a

statutory basis instead of what is now a case law basis for a practice of handing over statements of witnesses whose evidence conflicts with that of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intend to rely. In the magistrates' courts, in particular, I believe that this practice followed in the higher courts is often not followed. There is an argument for saying (hat something should be done, but not in the wider wording of subsection (3).
I thank my hon. Friend for arranging a discussion on the matter, though I believe that he is not likely to achieve success, in this Bill at any rate.

Mr. Stanbrook: I do not share the good will that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has expressed towards the clause, because it seems to me that it provides guilty people with extra opportunities to escape conviction. It is asking the prosecution to do the job of the defence. In recent years we have become accustomed to the defence in criminal trials being given greater and greater assistance to enable it to succeed, but this is ridiculous.
We have a system of law under which 95 per cent. of all crimes are dealt with in magistrates' courts. The effect of the adoption of the clause would be to impose a mountain of work upon prosecutions and police authorities. An enormous amount of paper would be required, apart from the time and labour of typists and police officers in compiling statements for the purposes of the clause. If any one wanted to gum up the works of the prosecution and the legal system of this country this is surely one way in which it could be done at a stroke.
The very concept of offering the whole of the prosecution evidence to the defence in trials in magistrates' courts is misconceived. Distinguished lawyers like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull may say that the defendant must know the case against him. Of course he should—and he gets that information. That is to say, he gets reasonable particulars. He is entitled to ask for them and if he does not get them he can insist, if necessary. The suggestion here is for an extension of the present procedure under which he will not merely be entitled to the particulars—

Mr. Grieve: Following my hon. Friend's argument to its logical conclusion I take it that he would be in favour of an amendment of the law which would deprive those going for trial on indictment of the statements of the evidence against them?

Mr. Stanbrook: I shall deal with that point when I come to it. What is being suggested in the clause is not merely that, as at present, particulars should be provided, but that the facts constituting the prosecution case should be provided, and, more than that, that the evidence on which those facts are based should be provided. We already have a system under which it is possible to provide the facts which constitute the case for the prosecution, so enabling defendants to decide beforehand how they should plead.
But the clause is asking for all the evidence. It has been asked by my hon. and learned Friend why there is any objection to the proposal when it is the system at present operated in cases on indictment. Apart from the fact that 95 per cent. of all cases are dealt with in magistrates' courts anyway—and that is a pretty weighty objection—there is a big distinction between cases heard on indictment and cases heard summarily, and that is the gravity of the offence.
It is possible to argue that certain cases are so serious and that the possible consequences for the defendants so great that they should be assisted with a full statement of the evidence against them at some stage before trial—that is to say, the stage at which the magistrates have to decide whether there is a prima facie case. That is all very well, but it does not follow that they should be so entitled with regard to any alleged offence, irrespective of its gravity.
I accept what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said about limiting the proposal to a certain range of cases. He excludes very small cases, of course, but he includes a large number of cases which potentially could result in imprisonment but which in most cases do not. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is proper to draw it at the level between magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts. It is not serving the interests of justice to require the prosecution to serve all its evidence to defendants in magistrates' courts.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I have been listening to the hon. Member's line of argument carefully and as I have an interest in justice I wonder why he is arguing against the production of all available evidence. Surely a court is entitled to hear all of the evidence before it pronounces judgment or convicts, or otherwise. I cannot understand why the hon. Member is objecting to the use of evidence from both sides.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry if I have opened the way to a misunderstanding. What is suggested in this clause is that the evidence should be made available to the defence before the trial. Of course, at the trial itself the evidence must be assembled, and it is the duty of the prosecution to produce all relevant evidence. What is here suggested is that before the trial, to enable the defence to assemble its case at trial, the prosecution evidence should be made available in written form. If this is so, I am saying that it is going too far in a direction in which we have been moving for some time in giving the edge, an extra advantage, to many defendants. It will result in more cases going for trial in the hope of picking holes in the prosecution case.
An example I have in mind is that of the offence of driving with excess alcohol in the blood. At the moment most of those cases are decided in magistrates' courts although they could be tried on indictment. Invariably a certificate is served before the trial showing that an analysis of the blood indicates a figure in excess of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. When thai certificate is served, the defendant knows how he should plead. If this clause is adopted the future situation will be that the defendant will not only get the certificate; he will get all the evidence, all the facts on which the police will act, the details of the arrest and subsequent behaviour. That is something to which he is already entitled if he elects to go for trial and to put the community and the system to that amount of inconvenience and trouble.
What is suggested is that this should apply at the magistrates' court stage before trial. In those cases a defendant who formerly would have pleaded guilty on the basis of the certificate will ask whether he can get round it because the


evidence shows that the officer was not in uniform at the time the arrest was made, or did not use the time-honoured words, or did not go through the appropriate processes after arrest. This clause would lead to an unworkable situation and I am wholly against it.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any solicitor who writes to the court and says that his client intends to plead not guilty can obtain these statements? All that he has to say later is that his client has changed his mind and is pleading guilty. Any solicitor who is prepared to stretch the truth a little gets the statements anyway. It is only those who refuse to pretend that their client is considering an alternative plea who do not get the statements.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member may be speaking from experience in his part of the world. As far as I know that practice is not followed in the London area and I do not believe that the Metropolitan Police go along with that sort of practice. Whenever I have advised an attempt to secure the written evidence of the prosecution before going to a magistrates' court on a possible election for trial it has never been possible to secure such papers. But if a solicitor gives a pledge that there will be an election for trial, it is possible to obtain the papers. There is an important distinction between the two. The sheer volume of work justifies the distinction.
On subsections (3) and (4) I believe with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull that it would be a retrograde step to require the prosecution to supply the statements made by witnesses whom it does not intend to call. That is yet another instance of the effect of the clause being to disable the prosecution. A statement is often taken from an alibi witness. Such a statement is valuable to the prosecution. If the prosecution is then required to hand over to the defendant, it is robbed of a weapon for getting at the truth when that witness, whose name and address has been supplied to the defence, comes to the court with a different story. Those are perfectly legitimate devices and practices in a trial aimed at getting at the truth. The overall effect of this clause is to prevent the courts getting at the truth.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I always like to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) address the House on these matters before making my own speech because he so frequently confirms me, as he has tonight, in the opposite point of view.
I am sure that everyone, whether here or outside the House, would agree that we should always aim at open justice openly arrived at. Where we may differ is on how far we should go in that direction, whether for administrative reasons and the additional work load that may be caused or whether for reasons of fairness between the parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has done right to make us stop and think again whether existing procedures are wholly satisfactory. In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, which became an Act in 1972, I moved an amendment in somewhat similar if perhaps rather more elaborate terms relating to trials by indictment. The Minister of State, Home Office, who was here at the beginning of the debate, tended to take the view that the proposals were unnecessary, but at the end of the debate, having heard several hon. Members, including his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who welcomed the amendment, he was constrained to say that he would look again at that matter, that he accepted the views of those who had experience in practising in the courts that the present situation was not satisfactory and that he would consider what steps might be taken to make improvements. Whatever happens to the new clause tonight, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able at least to match what his hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion and give a similar undertaking on this new clause.
I accept, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, that his new clause is cast in language which may be a little wide and that in its present form it would not be too easy to incorporate it precisely in the law, but the basic principle at which he is aiming is a desirable one. I would be more inclined to put the emphasis on subsection (3) of the new Clause, which is the matter of substance, and on subsection (2), which applies to the whole


of the new clause, then perhaps on subsection (1), which applies to those whom the prosecution is calling as witnesses.
One can perhaps see that there may be an argument about the view that, if the prosecution is to be required to hand over its statements to the defence, it would be equally right for the defence to hand over to the prosecution the statements made by witnesses whom the defence proposes to call. That is a possible view.
But when we come to subsection (3), we are dealing with people who have been interviewed, probably in most cases by the police but sometimes at the instance of a private prosecutor whose solicitor may have taken statements, and the prosecution, having obtained these statements has decided that they are witnesses it does not expect to call, perhaps because what they say is of no relevance, in which case no possible harm can be done by allowing the defendant to see their statements.
It may be that what they say merely confirms what prosecution witnesses are already going to say, and for that reason it is not thought desirable to add to the time taken up by the case in calling them. Again, if that is so, it can do no possible harm. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) pointed out, the weight of such statements may be sufficient to persuade someone who is guilty, but who up to then is determined to plead not guilty, to change his mind.
There is the third case—that of a witness's statement where the witness tells a story which is in conflict with the evidence given on behalf of the prosecution by other witnesses. If we accept the argument of open justice, openly arrived at, it is not right that a defendant in a serious criminal action, where there is a liability to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months, should be deprived of the right of seeing statements which the prosecution has discarded because they conflict with the evidence of other witnesses.
Of course, it would be for the defence to decide whether to call those witnesses. It may be decided that they were not suitable witnesses. But there may be gleaned from their statements material

which the defence, because of the limitations upon a defendant in obtaining material as compared, for example, with the police, would wish to bring before the court by calling the witnesses, which may put an entirely different light on the case as presented by the prosecution. So far from that taking up undue time of the court, that is surely the sort of case in which a defence which suspected that such material might be available would, following present practice, wish to go to a higher court.
In a higher court the defence would know that the practice would enable it to get those statements, whereas in the lower court it would not. Therefore, from the point of view of open justice and from the point of view of avoiding an undue number of cases which are triable on indictment going to the higher court —and finally an undue number of cases where there should be a plea of guilty being fought on a plea of not guilty—it would seem to me that the principle of subsection (3) ought to be seriously considered by the Government.
I hope that in reply the Solicitor-General will say that what has been said tonight will be carefully considered, and that whatever can be done to put right any deficiencies in the system which now exist will be done in one way or another by the Government either by legislation or by some form of circular addressed to the magistracy.

The Solicitor-General: In regard to the last few words of subsection (1) of the clause,
statements … taken from witnesses whom it is proposed to call or to tender to give evidence ",
this matter is dealt with in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. So long as statements are given not less than seven days beforehand, they have to be provided. Therefore, I imagine that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) is speaking of cases in which witnesses will attend a hearing.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis indicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: Inquiries made recently have disclosed a situation which was not known when this matter was discussed in Committee. As was forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), a great deal


of extra work would be involved. It is estimated that the number of cases where copies of statements would be or could be requested would be in the region of 500,000 a year. It will be seen what a huge amount of extra work would be involved for the police, and as a consequence there would undoubtedly be a clogging up of the magistrates' courts.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is that the total number in relation to subsections (1) and (3), or subsection (1) only—and how many cases would be involved in that figure of 500,000?

The Solicitor-General: That is the number involved if subsection (1) of new Clause 3 were to be accepted. Under subsection (2) the defendant, in the absence of legal representation, would be told of this right and one imagines that in most cases he would say "Yes, I should like it to be provided". It is impossible to estimate on how many occasions his legal representative would require it. Again, it is a fair assumption that in practically every case he would. This would range from dangerous driving cases right across the board, so long as the provision of a liability to imprisonment for more than three months applied.
11.15 p.m.
It is true that at the moment there may be occasions when adjournments are required because at some stage the defence has been caught unawares. But the number of adjournments which would be required if this provision became law would be enormously greater. So the requirements of manpower and adjournments make this provision, in our view, unacceptable.
There is a safeguard already. This applies not only to the kind of case which has been mentioned, in which one lets it be known that one's client intends to go for trial, and then, having received the statements in advance, decides to have the matter tried summarily. It also applies to the kind of case in which, because there may not be sufficient knowledge of the case against the accused, his legal advisers advise him to go for trial, and he decides, during the course of that hearing, subject to the ruling of the court, to have the matter dealt with summarily. Several witnesses may have attended and given evidence

but not been cross-examined, because the defence was reserving its rights. But if they then ask for the case to be dealt with summarily, they can ask for those witnesses to be recalled, and can then cross-examine. So there is that safeguard, even after full committal proceedings.
On subsections (3) and (4), on which the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) twice used the phrase "open justice openly arrived at", it is right to remind him that the statements of which we are speaking are documents which may or may not be handed from one side to the other. "Open justice openly arrived at" is concerned with evidence by witnesses in front of anyone attending the court. There is a strong distinction which should be drawn here.
In the case of a police inquiry, there may be hundreds and sometimes thousands of statements taken from many people, all of them apparently necessary, some of which, on analysis, turn out to be irrelevant. Those statements may not even be typed, they may contain hearsay evidence, matters of great privacy and delicacy to the maker of the statement, may in some cases be defamatory, perhaps causing the risk of grave domestic trouble, or giving details of previous convictions of the accused or other witnesses. These are matters which it would be wrong to broadcast.
Under the present system, the names and addresses of those witnesses who have been interviewed and whom the Crown has decided not to call are, if their evidence is relevant, provided to the defence solicitor. If, during the case, any witness is called who has made a statement inconsistent with his evidence, it is a practice for that inconsistent statement to be handed to the defence.
But if one is to provide every statement, taken from every person, it will, first, place a great burden on somebody to decide which are relevant statements and which are not, and it will, second, need a great deal of editing of the statements to cut out the irrelevant, the personal and the secret matters which are in no way connected with the issue which is being tried by the court.
One may get other examples where there may be a witness who is not treated


by the Crown as being reliable or credible, and there is the case where someone interviewed may well eventually be called as a witness for the defence. In those circumstances it would be quite wrong in the interests of justice—the interests of justice in this case being that the truth is eventually arrived at—that that person should have the advantage, weeks or months later, of having given to him, through the person to whom he is going to speak, the legal advisers, a resume of what he has said. This will prevent in this case the prosecution from having the very effective weapon which sometimes occurs when a man provides an alibi and gives an account which supports the defendant's case and has put to him a statement which he made after the event which is entirely contrary.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Reverting to subsections (1) and (2), which are far more fundamental, the hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware of the fact that a large number of prosecutors make available statements to accused persons, and more particularly to their advisers, before a hearing. Some more sanguinary prosecutors will not do that, as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) indicated. Disappointed though I am with the Solicitor-General's reply, will not he be prepared at least to go thus far—to say that a directive from the Home Office, or the appropriate Government Department, should be made that, unless prosecutors consider it contrary to the interests of justice and the public interest, they should divulge to the defence the statements prior to a hearing, albeit not in the requisite form under the Criminal Justice Act? This at least would go some of the way towards what I have sought.

The Solicitor-General: In a sense, it may be that the hon. Gentleman is a mind-reader. I should have come to that point a little later. Although it may be said by him that subsections (1) and (2) are the more important, other hon. Members have dealt with subsections (3) and (4) and I felt it right to accord to them the same courtesy that I have accorded in respect of earlier subsections.

Mr. Ernie Money: There is one aspect of this matter with which I wish my hon. and learned Friend to deal

shortly. There is still a limitation where a name is given to the defence if it is a case of a police officer. In some police forces that police officer can be interviewed only by the senior officer of his own force. Will my hon. and learned Friend make some general emphasis to police forces that police witnesses should be treated in the same way as any other witnesses?

The Solicitor-General: It may be that the practice varies. I do not know of which police force my hon. Friend is speaking. I suspect that it may be the force of which I am thinking. If he will give me the details I shall certainly look into that matter.
There are criticisms about the drafting of the new clause. I shall not deal with those. Concerning the future, I should prefer to see it become a matter of practice rather than of law. I am not sure that it is necessary that the actual statements of the witnesses for the prosecution should be handed over, literally, to the defence. In my experience at the bar, one was usually afforded by the prosecuting solicitor or prosecuting counsel a fair summary of what the case was, which was quite sufficient. One did not need the details. Sometimes, in a way, it was almost an embarrassment to see the actual statement. I should prefer to see it in any event as a matter of practice, as in so many of the ways in which the law works out between both sides, particularly when represented by counsel and solicitors, it works out that way satisfactorily. It would be very difficult to do it as a matter of legislation.
I leave the matter in this way: whilst inviting the House to reject the new clause, I undertake to reconsider the question, and I shall certainly invite the comments of the Criminal Bar Association and any other body to which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, may draw attention. It is certainly something that I am prepared to reconsider.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's final observations. At the outset of his remarks I thought that he would express a categorical refusal even to consider my observations. I feel that at some stage it would be desirable to have information before the House based upon the expert knowledge of the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar


Association, the Law Society, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, and the rest, because this is a matter about which I know many people have felt deeply for a long time.
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

COURSES OF INSTRUCTION FOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 46, at end add:
'(3) A justice of the peace shall attend at least one course of instruction in each calendar year.'
I raised this question in the Second Reading debate. It concerns the obligation of justices of the peace to undertake some form of instruction in each calendar year. In his Second Reading speech the Solicitor-General indicated that he thought it inappropriate to impose an obligation of this character upon a voluntary body. I do not accept that argument. It has to be remembered that when justices of the peace accept the solemn obligations imposed upon them on assuming office—the duty to determine guilt, the duty to impose an appropriate sentence, the duty to adjudicate on civil issues, as between husband and wife, and so on—they accept, perhaps by implication, the corollary duty that they will endeavour to keep abreast of changes in the law and in procedure, and, in conceptions that govern the thinking of magistrates' courts—and, in these days, Crown courts—to consider the way in which society at large is thinking about a wide variety of issues which impinge upon the functions of the justices.
I know that many justices of the peace accept and honour those obligations and already attend the instructional courses provided. I know something about those which are provided in inner London at least, because my wife is an assiduous attender of the instruction courses and sentencing exercises which are set. Many justices unquestionably attend, but there is still a substantial minority of justices of the peace who will not go to these sentencing exercises and have no real

interest in what is being discussed there and yet continue to occupy their important office.
I know that some justices of the peace say "We have enough to do spending our time in courts once a week or once a fortnight." I know that it is a heavy and time-consuming responsibility. But that is not an adequate excuse for one who accepts this solemn undertaking. These people may be extremely busy, but in order to fulfil their functions adequately they must not be too busy to attend at least one sentencing exercise or instructional course in each calendar year. That is not asking too much, particularly since these courses are generally held on Saturdays.
Sitting as a justice of the peace is not a game. One does not undertake these functions for purposes of social embellishment—at least, one should not do so. This is a vitally important role in our judicial system. Therefore, it is not a function that one should take on lightly.
Other justices say, "We are fairly experienced magistrates already. We do not need these instructional courses. We get our experience where it matters— on the bench". I do not think that is a satisfactory argument either, because there are often changes which affect our criminal law and, indeed, the civil jurisdiction of magistrates, and it would be wrong to treat those appearing before justices as guinea pigs.
11.30 p.m.
It is important that those who are experienced should obtain greater experience by attending sentencing exercises and other instructional courses. It is wrong, in a sense, to refer too much to sentencing exercises, because the courses ought to be of a much wider nature than they are now. I referred to this matter on Second Reading, and I shall not embellish upon it at this late hour, but there are important aspects of civil jurisdiction which perhaps do not feature too much in the instructional courses undertaken by justices.
I believe, too, that the experienced magistrate has a good deal to offer to the inexperienced one attending these instructional courses, and he ought to think about that. After all, he can pass on the benefit of the experience which he has acquired by sitting on the mock


benches at sentencing exercises. I hope, therefore, that there will not be too many who feel that they do not need the guidance and help which these courses can bestow.
I am not seeking to disparage justices —I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise this—because I accept that a large number of them undertake these exercises, but it should be obligatory on them all to undertake the minimum number of courses which I have set out in the amendment. They are volunteers but of a special kind with special obligations, and I do not think that this would be asking too much of them.

The Solicitor-General: This matter was debated in Committee. One of the problems raised by the amendment is that it would need a great deal of prior consultation, followed by agreement with the Magistrates' Association as representing the lay magistrates and, indeed, with magistrates, courts committees which have the duty and the financial responsibility of mounting the courses which they arrange each year for the justices.
When compulsory training was introduced it was recognised that those who were appointed were giving up their time to voluntary service and that they were usually mature and responsible persons, many of whom occupied prominent positions in the community. It was not thought proper to enforce this compulsory training by legislation, but it was enforced in a different way. That was by requiring justices to give an undertaking on appointment to complete a prescribed course of instruction within a year of appointment. They are, therefore, given that instruction within the first 12 months.
It must be remembered that justices are busy people with many other commitments. The amount of time which they are being required to give to their magisterial duties is increasing every year due to the increase in the number of cases which they have to try, and in my view it would be an intolerable burden to enforce attendance at even one course of instruction a year.
Magistrates' courts committees arrange at least a sentencing exercise, which is available for all the justices for whom they are responsible, not less than every

other year and in a number of cases more often. All justices are encouraged to attend these exercises and also any other instructional courses which may be available. Sometimes these are arranged by the magistrates' courts committees, or by branches of the Magistrates' Association, and at other times by universities and other educational institutions.
In my experience in East Anglia it is a frequent occurrence to have a weekend session from late on Friday evening until after lunch on Sunday at one of the colleges. There is a huge attendance. A large number of important, useful people—probation officers, prison officers, judges and the like—come to give lectures. A very big sentencing exercise takes place. It may be that in that part of the country we have been very lucky. It would be wrong to say that such attendance is lacking among magistrates generally. It is not. Most of them are very good about it.
I should not like to enforce upon magistrates by legislation what is basically recognised and agreed to be a voluntary system. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has under constant review the training of justices, a subject upon which he receives expert and informed advice. If at any time it became apparent to him that some form of compulsory training was required in addition to the basic training, I think that it could be introduced either as a condition of appointment, which would be the best way because upon accepting the appointment a magistrate would know what was involved, or subsequently by legislation.
My inclination would be not to change the terms of office of somebody who has accepted voluntary duty as a justice by thrusting upon him a few years later a compulsory form of instruction which he did not accept at the time of his appointment in addition to the onerous duties that he has to carry out in any event.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9

JUDICIAL PENSIONS (INCREASE OF WIDOW'S AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 6,


leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.
I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with this Amendment it might be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 3 to 8 and No. 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Yes, if the House agrees.

The Solicitor-General: These amendments have a dual effect as a result of the amendment that was made in Committee relating to pensions for widows. It became apparent when it was examined that those who died before the appointed time would not be able to make provision for their widows as was proposed in the Bill. The amendments will enable Clause 9 to apply to any person in office after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Secondly, they will make it possible for the regulations to provide for the case where a person dies in office during the period in which he might have exercised one of the options under Clause 9 or, having retired from office, dies during that period without having exercised his option.
As the clause stands, it is incapable of benefiting a person holding judicial office who either dies in office or retires before its commencement. Since the clause cannot be brought into force until the fairly complex regulations under it have been made, it means that nobody who retires for a considerable time ahead, or who dies in office during that time, would be able to provide for his widow and therefore benefit from the provisions.
It is obviously right that the clause should be capable of benefiting such persons and should operate in this way. It is wrong that the amount of pension payable to a judge's widow should depend on how quickly the Department concerned can prepare the regulations. They must not be prepared in a hurry for fear that they might be faulty. Therefore, these amendments are proposed to avoid what would seem to be an extremely unfair hiatus.

Amendment agreed to.

A mendments made: No. 3, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.

No. 4, in page 8, line 40, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.

No. 5, in page 9, line 9, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.

No. 6, in page 9, line 10, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 11 and insert:
'whereby, subject to any prescribed conditions, an election may be made by or with respect to a person—'.

No. 7, in page 9, line 14, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.

No. 8, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 10, line 3, at end insert:
' (8) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to the enactments mentioned in the Schedule (increase of certain widow's and children's pensions in Northern Ireland) to this Act as they have effect in relation to the Act of 1950, but subject to the adaptations provided for by that Schedule; and provision corresponding to that which is made by subsections (1) and (3) above, or which may be made by regulations under this section for purposes of those subsections, may, in relation to the pension benefits of any resident magistrate or county court registrar included in Schedule 5 to the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (persons remaining subject to the Superannuation Acts (Northern Ireland) 1967 and 1969), be made by order of the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland.
For the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 this subsection shall be deemed to have been passed before the appointed day within the meaning of that section '.
This makes provision first for the increase of widows' and children's pensions in respect of county court judges, clerks of the Crown and peace, certain resident magistrates, the National Insurance Commissioners, the President of the Industrial Court and certain others. Secondly, it deals with the cases of certain judicial officers—two resident magistrates and the one full-time county court registrar—to whom the provisions of the Superannuation Acts (Northern Ireland) 1967 and 1969 continue to apply by virtue of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. It enables the Ministry of Finance


to make an order increasing the pensions of widows and children of those judicial officers.
The curious second paragraph is intended to comply with Section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which provides that in terms of amending legislation nothing shall happen after the appointed day. In order to preserve Stor-mont's power, therefore, everything is to be deemed to apply before the appointed day all those years ago.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 10. leave out lines 7 and 8.— [The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 11

RETIREMENT OF HIGHER JUDICIARY IN EVENT OF INCAPACITY

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 26, leave out
'but is for the time being incapacitated from resigning it'.
I make no apology for moving again an amendment that I moved in Committee. At the end of the debate on that amendment I said that I hoped the Government would keep an open mind on the matter and look at it again before Report. Naturally I hope that that has been done and that in due course the result will be manifested through the mouth of the Solicitor-General.
Clause 11 introduces a new concept into our procedure for senior judges in that it enables the Lord Chancellor, subject to various qualifications, to remove a High Court judge if that judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office. But before doing so he has to be satisfied that that is so by a medical certificate and in addition by consulting various senior judges who are in a position to know whether the infirmity is likely to be a disabling and permanent one.
In a major constitutional matter which I concede this to be, all that obviously is right. The clause provides not merely that the judge should be disabled by permanent infirmity from performing his duties but also, as a second test, that the judge should for the time being be incapacitated from resigning his office.

There are two conditions precedent before the Lord Chancellor can exercise this power.
I invite the House to look at the position where, unhappily, a judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office, where this is certified to the Lord Chancellor by the necessary medical certificate and where he has satisfied himself by consulting the senior judges whom he is required to consult under the terms of the clause.
11.45 p.m.
Three possibilities exist. The first is that a judge who is so disabled may voluntarily resign, realising that he cannot carry on his duties. No doubt that happens frequently. If that happens the problem disappears. The second possibility is that a judge is unable to record his resignation because his incapacity prevents him from doing so. If that is the position, without the words which I seek to leave out the Lord Chancellor would be enabled by the clause to remove the judge. He would be able to remove him if he was disabled by permanent infirmity from performing the duties of his office. It adds nothing in those circumstances that in addition he is incapacitated from resigning.
The third possibility is that, being disabled by permanent infirmity from performing the duties of his office, a judge, not recognising that that is the position, declines to resign.
That is the difficult case. That is the one case in which the Lord Chancellor would wish and need to have the power to remove a judge, and that is the case when under the clause he is unable to do so.
I appreciate, as the Solicitor-General said in Committee, that constitutional issues are involved. Of course, we wish to avoid trespassing upon the independence of the judiciary any more than is necessary. Nevertheless it is an odd way in which to comply with that correct principle when that is the one case when the clause does not enable the Lord Chancellor to act. The only means by which he could require a judge to resign, or by which a judge could be required to do so is by the procedure which happily is so rare and which I hope will be even more rare—namely, the removal of the judge by an address of both Houses. It


is the one difficult case that may arise and arises when, unhappily, people are disabled by permanent infirmity from performing their duties and do not see why they should resign.
The Solicitor-General said in Comhmittee that he fully understood the logic of the amendment but on constitutional grounds he came down against it. Because it is a logical necessity, if such a clause is to be introduced at all the amendment should be accepted. As to constitutional considerations, it is the clause and not the particular wording that is the important innovation, and by the amendment the Opposition are giving effect to what was manifestly the Government's intention in drafting the clause.
I hope that the Solicitor-General, having had time to reflect upon the matter, will appreciate the reasons for the amendment. I hope he will accept that they are not only logical, as he did, but desirable and that he will accordingly accept the amendment.

The Solicitor-General: This is perhaps a rehearsal of the debate in Committee.
I must emphasise yet again that the special position of the higher judiciary goes back to Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700, which provided that judges' commissions be made quamdiu se bene gesserint, but that upon the address of both Houses of Parliament it might be lawful to remove them.
At present a judge can vacate his office only by resignation, death, promotion or attainment of the age of 75 if he was appointed after 17th September 1959. This is a constitutional protection which has been carefully preserved for over 270 years. I cannot agree to any diminution of that constitutional safeguard, which has been one of the heritages that we have cherished over that long period of time.
I must ask the House to resist the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 15

PAYMENT OF INTERPRETERS IN CRIMINAL CASES (ENGLAND AND WALES)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'with' to 'and' in line 22 and insert:

'then if he has incurred expenses on the employment of an interpreter for the proceedings on the information, he may apply to a magistrates' court for that area and the court shall order the payment out of central funds of the expenses properly so incurred by him'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Amendment No. 12, in line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall', Amendment No. 13, in line 24, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall', and Government Amendment No. 19.

The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were set down only yesterday, arise as a result of the amendments put down by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). What he set out to achieve is quite acceptable to the Government and I am grateful to him for drawing it to our attention. The reasons why his amendments have not been selected are purely those of drafting.
The result of the Government amendments is exactly the same as the hon. Gentleman intended. In short, they say that not only where a case has been brought before the court and the defendant has appeared will he be entitled as a matter of right to any costs involved in the use of an interpreter, but that also on those occasions when the information has been laid but withdrawn before the court hears the case, or in similar circumstances at a Crown court, so that he does not appear, he may apply to those courts for any costs properly incurred in the use of an interpreter, subject to the proviso that applies in all cases that he must satisfy the court that his lack of English required that.
The Government amendments adopt and put into drafting terms the hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. He has made the point more clearly than my amendments could have done, and I am grateful to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 13, line 24, leave out from 'tied' to end of line 27 and insert:
'then if he has incurred expenses on the employment of an interpreter for the proceedings in the Crown Court, he may apply to


the Crown Court and the court shall order the payment out of central funds of the expenses properly so incurred by him '.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 18

COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 15, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The Bill at present provides that the provisions relating to county court jurisdiction and the related repeals should not come into force until 1st April. That date has now passed and the amendment is therefore necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 19

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 17, line 18, leave out 'and 16' and insert: 
'16 and "pensions of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland "'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — New Schedule

INCREASE OF CERTAIN WIDOW'S AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

'1.The enactments in relation to which section 9 of this Act has effect by virtue of section 9(8) are—

(a) Part XIII of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (relating to county court judges and clerks of the Crown and peace), in relation to which the references in section 9 of this Act to section 7(4), section 8 and section 11 (or sections 10 and 11) of the Act of 1950 shall be replaced, respectively, by references to section 126(4) of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, section 127 of that Act and section 13 of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951;
(b) the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, in relation to which—

(i) subsection (4)(c) of section 9 of this Act and the reference in subsection (6) to sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1950 shall not apply; and
(ii) the references in section 9 to section 7(4) and section 8 of the Act of 1950 shall be replaced, respectively, by references to section 8(4) and section 9 of the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;

(b) Part II of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 (relating, by virtue of later enactments, to the National Insurance Commissioners, the President of the Industrial Court and the President of the Industrial Tribunals), in relation to which—

(i) subsection (4)(c) of section 9 of this Act and the reference in subsection (6) to sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1950 shall not apply; and
(ii) the references in section 9 in section 7(4) and section 8 of the Act of 1950 shall be replaced, respectively, by references to section 10 (4) and section 11 of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951.

(2) In relation to the provisions to which section 9 of this Act applies by virtue of paragraph 1(a) or of paragraph 1(b) above references in section 9 to relevant service shal have effect as references to service within the meaning of those provisions.

(3) In relation to any of the provisions to which section 9 of this Act applies by virtue of paragraph 1 above, the expression "enaci-ment" in section 9(6) shall mean enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or amendable by Act of that Parliament; and section 9 (7) shall not apply, but regulations for purposes of section 9 may be made with the consent of the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland by the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland or, in relation to the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951, the Ministry of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, and shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if they were a statutory instrument within the meaning of that Act'.—[The Solicitor-General/]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 29, line 54, at end insert:

' 9 &amp; 10 Eliz. 2 c. 3.
The Administration of Justice (Judges and Pensions) Act 1960.
Section 2".


—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (MAINTENANCE ORDERS)

Resolved,

That the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, be approved.—[Mr. Murton.]

Orders of the Day — IRON (ANTI-DUMPING DUTY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1973 S.I., 1973, No. 419), dated 9th March 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.—[Mr. Murton.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: The Minister has been saved by the Whip formally moving the motion in his absence. I wish to speak briefly on the matter. This is the second anti-dumping order affecting East Germany to come before the House in the last five months. The Minister no doubt remembers that last November his Department placed a duty of £2,250 per machine on sweet-wrapping machines from that country.
Now we have the order imposing antidumping duty of £5 a tonne on pig iron and cast iron. Will the Minister say who complained? I know that the British Steel Corporation, the private sector and the British Scrap Federation might have been involved, but the Minister must inform the House who has complained sufficiently to insist upon an examination of the matter.
Will the Minister also tell us what was the extent of the material injury and what tonnage of pig and cast iron has been coming in from East Germany? I take it that this £5 per tonne duty will be retrospective. From what date will it apply? How much will Customs gather as a result? Because the Department of Trade and Industry has had to impose two duty orders within five months against the German Democratic Republic, it may give the appearance of being vigilant. This vigilance is absolutely necessary.
The Department and Customs and Excise must observe more closely the numbers and types of products coming into Britain from Eastern Europe. Its system of trading is quite different from our own. It has a State monopoly and State control of products and exports. No

doubt State subsidies are involved too. This is also true of other Eastern European countries. That is why there are constant complaints, for example from the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board, about the dumping of cheap Polish coal on the British market. It is about time that an examination was made of that.
At the moment the German Democratic Republic is guilty of malpractice in international trading. The Minister might care to say what representations he has made or intends to make to the GDR Government about the question of fair trading and the need to observe international trading agreements. I cannot understand why it persists in this practice. Apart from Parliament having to be informed each time it is caught, many firms and businesses must get to know of these malpractices and that must do the offending nation greater harm.
The Eastern European bloc, particularly the USSR, Romania and the GDR, has been guilty of the dumping of goods into Britain which has caused material injury to our producers on at least six occasions in the last three years. I hope that the Minister and the Department will inform it that it is six times too often. It is now necessary to inform the Eastern European countries, particularly the GDR, that these malpractices cannot be tolerated. In their own interests they ought to curtail their dumping practices.

12.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury for moving acceptance of the order. Some of us were taken by surprise at the remarkable taciturnity of our legal friends in the preceding debate.
This order, which was made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969, imposes an anti-dumping duty of £5 per tonne on pig iron, originating in East Germany, prospectively from 9th March 1973 and retrospectively to 12th September 1972 when a provisional charge to duty was imposed. That deals with one of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
The anti-dumping action which we have taken follows a thorough investigation by the Department in response to


an anti-dumping application submitted by the United Kingdom producers of pig iron. The application came from the British Steel Corporation and was supported by Ford.
Our investigation established that the East German pig iron was dumped by reference to the price paid for imports of comparable pig iron from Norway, after adjustments had been made to allow for differences in the composition of the pig iron imported from these two different sources. The 1969 Act allows us to use this method of assessing dumping in the case of imports from State-trading countries when satisfactory information cannot be obtained about their domestic prices.
We were also satisfied, after a thorough investigation of the position of the British producers by our professional accountants, that the dumping had caused material injury and threatened to cause further material injury to the British industry. In the light of these findings, and after considering representations made to us by importers and users of the pig iron, we concluded that it was in the national interest to impose the duty.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the extent of the imports. Between August 1971 and July 1972 imports from East Germany amounted to 58,000 tonnes, and they were on a rising curve. The Department's estimate was that at the peak rate of imports in 1972 the maximum loss would be about 80,000 tonnes a year out of a total open market purchase of about 600,000 tonnes. Therefore we took the provisional action in September, after which imports ceased.
We did not receive all the information we required from the British Steel Corporation on the financial position until about November last year. Therefore, bearing in mind that there has been a court case on this matter in which judgment was given in the Department's favour on 6th March, I think that the Department has acted as expeditiously as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned coal. Imports of coal from all sources are currently at very low levels, and imports of Polish coal form only a small proportion of the total. The Gov-

ernment are nevertheless keeping the situation under close review.
Finally, I will say a word on the general observations of the right hon. Gentleman about the Eastern bloc in general and East Germany in particular. He is right in saying that this is the second occasion on which an anti-dumping order has had to come before the House dealing with East Germany. Naturally we deplore dumping, and we have shown that we are prepared to take action. But we have to investigate the cases very thoroughly to ensure that there is material injury and that there is dumping. We also have to have regard to the interest of consumers, which we must never forget, and the consumers' interest is obviously to get as cheap products as possible. But we are determined to see that dumping is safeguarded against, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we note carefully the countries from which there seems to be a spate of dumping.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the Department also has to have regard to the broad trade interests of this country. We export substantially to the Eastern bloc countries, and we cannot allow any feelings we have on particular dumping issues to cloud our minds on the general overall trade position. Nevertheless we have acted in this case, and we will act in other cases where substantial dumping is proved, whether by East Germany or any other country.
I therefore hope that the House will approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1973 (S.I., 1973. No. 419), dated 9th March 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL

Ordered,

That the Order for Committee be discharged and that the Bill, as amended (in the Select Committee), be re-committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Resolved,

That Mr. Dick Taverne be designated a Member of the European Parliament.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — GENERAL RATE ACT 1967 (EXEMPTION OF CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES) (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Queris Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to exclude payments of the constant attendance allowance from calculations of gross income when assessing eligibility for rate rebates under the General Rate Act 1967, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — GENERAL RATE ACT 1967 (EXEMPTION OF CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Ordered,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for adding attendance allowances to the matters specified in section 7(3) of the Rating Act 1966 (which relates to the calculation of rate rebates payable in Scotland).—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — ABINGDON BYPASS

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has always been of the greatest assistance to me and my constituents in matters concerning roads in North Berkshire, but he will agree with me that in the last few months something has gone seriously wrong with the planning of the second stage of the Abingdon bypass and the link road to Didcot. This has caused considerable exasperation and inconvenience in view of the previous assurances which Ministers have given over the past two years that the two stages of the Abingdon bypass would be built in succession and without a prolonged interval between them.
On 28th March my hon. Friend wrote to me saying that the Didcot link road was in the preparation list. I thought this was very welcome. I wish to refer to the rather confusing Press release which his Department gave afterwards, giving details of the interchanges and side roads of stage two between Drayton and Chilton. In a Written Answer on 29th March he included the Faringdon bypass as well, which is also in my constituency, and which I hope he will mention in his reply tonight. I express my thanks to him on behalf of Faringdon for the inclusion of the Faringdon bypass, and also to all the local authorities and the action group who worked very hard to get this result.
But I should mention that the news of the inclusion of the Faringdon bypass in the preparation list was somewhat marred by the Berkshire county surveyor, who, during the filming of a BBC "Man Alive" programme on Friday, chose to say that it would be six to eight years before the bypass was built, which rather dampened the spirits of the audience.
Berkshire County Council has issued a more reassuring statement, and it will be for Oxfordshire County Council— under the local government reorganisation my constituency will go to Oxfordshire—to decide on the speed of construction. But I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to use his good offices and say that procedures are being followed which will speed things up, that the paper work is being cut down and that the bypass will be built in a much shorter period.
The second stage of the Abingdon bypass, included in the statement my hon. Friend made on 29th March, has been the subject of correspondence throughout 1971 and 1972. In 1971 my hon. Friend's predecessor, now Minister for Aerospace, said that both stages should be built in one contract, and as late as 24th January 1973 my hon. Friend himself evidently hoped that the gap in the completion of the two stages would be very narrow. But on 21st February he had to inform me that the status of the Didcot link road had not been settled and that this would cause delay in publishing the interchanges and the side roads. They were published last week,


but even so it appears to me from what I have heard that 12 months will elapse between the end of stage one and the beginning of stage two, which, on a two-year contract, means that three to four years at least will elapse before the whole bypass is built. I assume that the first stage will be finished fairly soon, and as there has been fine weather recently this is to be expected perhaps by the autumn, according to local reports.
There is no doubt that there has been an administrative tangle and some serious planning mistakes have been made. The consequences for the surrounding villages must be considered. It is still not absolutely clear from my hon. Friend's Department's Press release how far the Didcot link will go. To be effective, it must go to the far side—that is to the east or Wallingford side of Didcot. If it is only to go from the new interchange at Milton Heights to the Foxhall Road it will not bring about the radical improvement in the Didcot road system that is so needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that point in his reply. The Press release of 29th March does not make clear that the road is in the preparation list, although one knows that that is so.
To return to the interchanges, on the second stage of the bypass the plan has now been changed from having an interchange at Drayton, where there is to be a flyover, to one at Milton Heights. When will work on stage two begin as a result of the latest announcement about these interchanges? This is of enormous consequence to the village of Steventon, through which vehicles travel southwards probably at speeds of up to 70 miles an hour on dual carriageway along stage one to a point north of Drayton. This will affect safety in the village. Some 19 per cent. of the traffic will be heavy vehicles, and, according to local calculations, 40 per cent. of local traffic will create a dangerous situation on the existing A34, which will continue after stage one as far as Chilton. Will my hon. Friend say what effect the temporary terminal connection now being constructed at Drayton is likely to have on this position? Between Drayton and Steven-ton the stretch of A34 requires special safety measures if this is to happen,

particularly at the S-bend opposite Esso House.
Some constructive suggestions have been made locally. The Steventon Road Safety Association has also proposed some steps of which I have given my hon. Friend notice. The first is that there should be a 40 miles an hour limit on the A34 from the end of stage one to the existing 30 miles an hour speed limit in Steventon. The second point the association makes is that the existing plans to raise the 30 m.p.h. limit through Steventon should be scrapped, at any rate for the present. The third point it makes is that there should be traffic lights at Hanney Road, at which a lot of the traffic turns off the A34. Fourthly, it suggests that there should be a pedestrian crossing or footbridge in Steventon.
Other neighbouring villages are affected by the delay in the planning and construction of the bypass. For example, the village of Milton is suffering from a steady flow of lorries to a new industrial estate, which will continue until the interchange at Milton Heights is built. Therefore, the sooner the planning and construction can be speeded up the better for them. At the village of Chilton, at the south end of stage two, there is considerable uncertainty about the future. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross the A34 or to emerge by car from the village into dense traffic.
The proposed interchange at Chilton will, in fact, go straight through an existing service station belonging to Mr. Hodsdon, my constituent, about whom the Minister already knows. Mr. Hodsdon has been trying to make improvements to his service station. Can he be told his position as soon as possible, particularly with regard to compensation?
There is also a large area of land on the Manor Estate, Chilton, which has been blighted for the past 10 years by the knowledge that this second stage of the bypass was to be constructed in that area.
Now that the side roads and interchanges have been published by my hon. Friend, subject to objection before 8th June next, can he say what procedures will be followed to make up for lost time? I am not interested in blaming people too much for these delays.


Obviously, there must be some explanation, but the clock cannot be put back. What I would ask him to do is to take steps to speed up those procedures so as to save my constituents anxiety and possibly the lives of several of them. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure them tonight.

12.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): First, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the remarks at the start of his speech. As he and I both know, on various occasions, certainly over the past year, he has impressed on me his concern and that of his constituents about a series of road schemes. I know that before that my hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping was similarly pressed several times by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is particularly concerned on behalf of his constituents living in the Steventon area about the effects of the gap between the completion dates of the first and second stages of the Abingdon bypass.
Perhaps before I deal with that, the main subject of this debate, I should say a word about the Faringdon bypass. My attention has been drawn by my hon. Friend to the remarks of the Berkshire county surveyor last week, and I understand—I have a copy here—that statements have been issued both by the vice-chairman of the Berkshire County Council highways and bridges committee and by the Chairman of the Berkshire County Council. It is fair to paraphrase both those statements as saying that they hope that, with the speed-up in consultation and other procedures, which are the responsibility of the county council, it will be possible to improve upon the estimate of six to eight years mentioned by the county surveyor last week.
The Faringdon bypass is essentially a matter for the local authority concerned. Nevertheless, so far as my Department has an interest in this—and, of course, we do, not least in providing the money and in the programming and the rest— we shall be pleased to consider the proposals sympathetically, and I hope speedily, when they come to us from the county council.
There is to be a change of highway authority for the Faringdon area on the reorganisation of local government, and I understand that schemes such as this, which will be subject to a change of highway authority, have already been the subject of discussions between the two counties concerned. My Department's regional controller's office is maintaining a watching brief to ensure that the takeover is a smooth one.
On the main question of the Abingdon bypass, my hon. Friend has alerted me to the likelihood that difficult traffic-conditions may be experienced on the existing A34 between Drayton and Chilton during the construction of the second stage, and he has pointed to the risk that these conditions could be aggravated as a result of the completion of the first stage, which will make a fast road leading through to the uncompleted second stage.
I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern, and everything which can be done to speed up the second stage is being done. As he said, a significant step forward was taken last week, with the publication in draft of the side roads order.
Urgent as is the need, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we must follow the statutory procedures. We must ensure that the proposals which we put forward for connections with and alterations to other roads will satisfactorily meet the need for links not only with the existing road system but—this is important— with other proposed roads in the area. We must ensure also that where there is a close relationship between a road for which the Secretary of State is responsible—a trunk road—and a road for which the local highway authority is responsible the differing procedures which have to be followed for each road are carefully co-ordinated.
Nothing is gained by the premature publication of proposals that are unlikely to win general acceptance, and a great deal of time can be lost if proposals have to be withdrawn, reconsidered and republished.
It was important, therefore, that my Department should satisfy itself that the proposals for interchanges on the Drayton-Chilton section, which were published last week and are now open to


objection on the time scale mentioned by my hon. Friend, would be justifiable and would adequately meet the needs of traffic. Within the next few weeks the Department will publish further orders concerned with the connection at Drayton between stages one and two and with the compulsory acquisition of the land required for stage two. That will meet the point about Mr. Hodsdon, to which my hon. Friend was referring, because it will be the draft compulsory purchase order for the land required for the roadworks which, I understand, will affect Mr. Hods-don's property. As owner of the property, Mr. Hodsdon will be entitled to compensation in accordance with the usual rules. In assessing the compensation the district valuer will have regard to all the relevant circumstances at the time, including any planning consents which Mr. Hodsdon may then have for his property.
Provisional arrangements are being made to hold a public inquiry in September, if one proves to be necessary, to look into objections to any of these orders. Subject to satisfactory completion of these procedures, and the availability of funds—that is always a caveat which one has to enter—we aim to make a start on stage two at the end of 1974 with a view to completion at the end of 1976.
The first stage from South Hinksey to Drayton is under construction and is due to be completed at the end of this year. Thus there will be a gap of about three years between the completion of stage one and the completion of stage two. I agree that it is disappointing that this gap will be about a year longer than we had earlier hoped, but there have been problems requiring considerable negotiation and detailed investigation to overcome.
The plan of this route was fixed in January 1971 and indicated a possible site for an interchange to serve Didcot between the existing A4130 and A417. After the line had been fixed, the recommendations of the Didcot-Abingdon-Wantage Transportation Study became available. They included a proposal for a new link road to serve Didcot which would cross the new A34 route near Milton Heights. In the light of this recommendation, the interchange proposals for the Chilton-Drayton length were reviewed. In place of the A417-A4130 interchange, consulta-

tions with local authorities, preparatory to publication of the Department's proposals, were carried out in February 1972 on the basis of an interchange to serve Didcot at Milton Heights. At this time the programme envisaged publication of the draft side roads order in April 1972, to coincide with the expected publication by Berkshire County Council of formal proposals for the Didcot link in the form of a planning application. This would allow the application to be called in by the Secretary of State and taken to a joint public inquiry with the interchange proposals, if a public inquiry should become necessary. In the event, Berkshire County Council's application was not published until 21st September 1972 and publication of the Department's side roads order was deferred accordingly.
In the meantime—this is where my Department has a responsibility—some doubts were felt within the Department about the status of, and the necessity for, the Didcot link, and it was decided that publication of the interchange proposals must be withheld until these questions were resolved.
After discussions between the Department and the county council, it was agreed that an interchange at Milton Heights should be included in the Department's proposals in anticipation of the acceptance of the Didcot link proposal, but it was felt that the case for an additional interchange with the A417, including a link road to the A4130, should also be investigated. As a result of the investigations, which have now been completed, it has been decided not to include a proposal for the A417-A4130 interchange. The side roads order now published provides for an interchange at Milton Heights and a free-flow connection with the existing A34 at Chilton. The Milton Heights interchange will connect with the A34 at Steventon via a new link road and with Potash Lane.
It has been designed to connect also with the Didcot link road proposed by the Berkshire County Council. The Department has considered the county council's planning application and informed it that it accepts the necessity for the link. But, since the link as proposed will be possible only if the Milton Heights interchange is constructed, no final decision on the planning application will


be taken until it is known whether a public inquiry will be held into the interchange proposal. If there is an inquiry, it would seem desirable to deal with the Didcot link at the same time.
I am pleased to be able to say that the Didcot link has not been added to the preparation list. This is a scheme for which Berkshire County Council is responsible. The planning application relates only to the first stage, from Milton Heights to Foxhall Road. Any eastward extension will no doubt be the subject of a further planning application.
My hon. Friend was right to refer to a number of other important matters which remain to be resolved. It is no longer proposed to provide a permanent interchange with the A34 at Drayton. When the partial interchange at Drayton was originally proposed it was thought that the first interchange further south might be at Harwell. The subsequent publication of the results of the Didcot-Abingdon-Want-age Transportation Study, with its proposal for a Didcot link road crossing the new trunk road at Milton Heights, changed the situation. Construction of an interchange at Drayton cannot be justified in addition to one at Milton Heights only about 1¼ miles to the south.
Draft orders to authorise the deletion of the Drayton interchange from the proposals will be published shortly. Access to the new trunk road from the Drayton area will be available via either Milton Heights or the A415 interchange west of Abingdon. A temporary connection is being constructed to provide access between the A34 and the first stage of the Abingdon bypass until the second stage is completed, when the temporary connection will be severed.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that a great deal of work in connection with the statutory procedures still remains to be done. Advantage will certainly be taken of every opportunity to speed up the process. For example, the Department has taken advantage of the powers made available under the Highways Act 1971 to adopt a shortened objection period for the side roads order. It proposes also to adopt a shortened period for the Drayton interchange order—I cannot pre-judge that in any way; I would not wish to discourage objections—and if it does not

prove to be necessary to hold a public inquiry it is likely that the construction programme can be brought forward.
In anticipation of the possible three-year gap between the completion of the first and second stages, provision has been made in the Abingdon bypass contract for suitable signing and lighting at, and at the approach to, the temporary terminal at Drayton, and I have arranged for an assessment to be made of likely traffic conditions on the A34 south of Drayton following completion of the first stage in order to determine what safety measures should be provided on the existing road. Comprehensive safety measures are being considered, and the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account. I can promise him that I shall write to him as soon as possible giving the details of what we proposed. We are taking the matter extremely seriously.
With regard to the suggestion that the bridge to carry the new road over the existing A34 at Drayton should be constructed as part of the first stage, there seems little advantage to be gained. The bridge could not serve any useful purpose until the second stage is completed. Whenever this bridge is built there will be some inconvenience to traffic, which will be diverted to one side or the other of the existing road, but access between Steventon and Drayton will be maintained.
My hon. Friend has raised in correspondence the question of the standards for the bridge to carry Cow Lane over the new road. This will be a combined bridle way and accommodation bridge, about 15 ft. wide, with 5 ft. high parapets. It will be adequate for farm traffic.
I appreciate the problems which this delay will bring, and I deeply regret them. I think that they are a combination of circumstances involving my Department and other authorities. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall do all the we can within the procedures, and the short procedures, to speed up construction of the second stage. If we can improve upon the completion date that I have given, we shall do so.
I also promise that in the interim period we shall do all that we can to make the A34 south of Drayton as safe as possible.


In that we shall take fully into account the helpful suggestions made by my hon. Friend and his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.